Ramakant Mishra And ANR v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.841 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -451 Year- 2014 Thana -BUXAR COMPLAINT CASE DistrictBUXAR ======================================================

1. Ramakant Mishra S/O Late Shivjee Mishra

2. Ravi Prakash Mishra S/O Ramakanta Mishra both R/o VillageSonbarsa, P.S. Buxar (I), District- Buxar. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Sucheta Devi W/O Late Ravi Ranjan Mishra D/O Surendra Kumar Pandey R/O Village- Sonbarsa, P.S. Buxar (I), District- Buxar at present R/O Village- Parmanpur, P.S. Koran Sarai, District- Buxar. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Praveen Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Harendra Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 08-05-2017 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned A.P.P. for the State as also the learned counsel for the complainant.

In this application for anticipatory bail the petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 451 C of 2014 for the offences punishable under sections 420 and 385 of the I.P.C.

Allegedly, the petitioners being father-in-law and Bhaisur took all the ornaments of the complainant on the plea to give the ornaments of more weight and after death of husband of the complainant they started torturing her. They forced her to sign on the paper of Insurance to claim Insurance amount of her husband and when she refused she was being tortured and

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.841 of 2017 (5) dt.08-05-2017 2/2 assaulted brutally. They caused threats that if she will not sign her life and the life of her daughter will be ruined. Due to the torturous act of the petitioners the complainant is living in her Maike. Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner no.1 is at the age of retirement, he is in service, he is ready to maintain the complainant, he is also ready to give half share in the landed property to the complainant but the complainant is not ready to compromise the case and as such the petitioners deserve sympathetic consideration. The learned A.P.P. duly assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposes prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioners by submitting that the petitioners have made life of the complainant hell. They are greedy and due to greed they are torturing her.

In the facts and circumstances as stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioners, I am not inclined to grant privilege of pre-arrest bail to them and accordingly their such prayer stands rejected in connection with the aforementioned case pending in the court of S.D.J.M. Buxar. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) Abhay/- U T