Vidyanand Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35338 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-331 Year-2014 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Supaul ====================================================== VIDYANAND RAM Son of Surya Narayan Ram Resident of village - Hulash, P.S. - Raghopur, Distt. - Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

FULO DEVI D/o Maheshwar Ram Resident of village - Belokhara, P.S. - pipra, Distt. - Supaul ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arun Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey For the Complainant :

Mr. Nafisuzzoha Mr. Md. Nematulla ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 28-06-2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to remove defect (s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of four weeks on resumption of physical mode.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.

The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 331c of 2014 dated 27.03.2014 registered for the offences punishable u/ss 341, 323, 498A, 379 of the Indian Penal Code and 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and the coaccused persons are alleged to have assaulted the complainant due to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35338 of 2023(2) dt.28-06-2023 2/2 non-fulfillment of demand of Rs. 50,000/- as dowry. It is further alleged that they also ousted her from the matrimonial home. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner. The petitioner neither demanded any dowry nor tortured the complainant. The petitioner and the complainant were leading their conjugal life happily and two daughters were born out of their wedlock. The petitioner has clean antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner is in custody since 17.12.2022. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the bail petition of the petitioner.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the period of custody, the petitioner above-named, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court concerned, Supaul in connection with Complaint Case No. 331c of 2014.

The application stands allowed.

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) guddukr/- U T