Vivek Ranjan @ Vivek Kumar @ Monu @ Vivek Kumar Ranjan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.8044 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -49 Year- 2017 Thana -MAHILA P.S. District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ======================================================

1. Vivek Ranjan @ Vivek Kumar @ Monu, Son of Vijay Singh, Resident of Village- Chitaur Nagar, P.S.- Aurangabad, District- Aurangabad. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Santosh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Sri Shyameshwar Dayal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR ORAL ORDER 27-02-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Rohtas Mahila Police Station Case No. 49 of 2017 registered for the offences under sections 420, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

It has been submitted that negotiation for marriage had taken place between the father of the petitioner and the guardian of the informant, but nothing was received as dowry. The allegation of taking ornaments and cash amount is against the father of the petitioner, Vijay Kumar Sinha, who has been allowed anticipatory bail by one of the coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No.48755/2017. Allegation against this petitioner is omnibus and

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8044 of 2018 (3) dt.27-02-2018 2/2 there is delay of more than one year for lodging the FIR. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for bail is allowed and the above named petitioner in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned court below within six weeks from today, are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with Rohtas Mahila Police Station Case No. 49 of 2017, subject to condition as laid down under section 438(2) Cr.P.C. with further condition:

(1)One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be Local person having sufficient immovable Property within the jurisdiction of the concerned Court.

(2)The petitioner will not induce any witness or tamper with the evidence.

(3)The petitioner shall cooperate in the disposal of trial and make himself available as and when required by the court.

(Sanjay Kumar, J) Mahesh/- U T