Ravi Ranjan Singh @ Pappu Singh v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.39232 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -226 Year- 2012 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPATNA ======================================================

1. Dharmshila Devi @ Dharmshila Kuwar

2. Rahul Singh

3. Chintu Singh .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. State of Bihar

2. Jintendra Prasad Singh .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with Criminal Miscellaneous No.41302 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -226 Year- 2012 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPATNA ====================================================== Ravi Ranjan Singh @ Pappu Singh .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

State of Bihar & Anr .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

(In Cr.Misc. No.39232 of 2014) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sada Nand Ray-Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sunil Kr.Pandey(A.P.P.) (In Cr.Misc. No.41302 of 2014) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sada Nand Ray-Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary (A.P.P.) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 13-05-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

Both the Criminal Miscellaneous bearing no.39232 of 2014 wherein Dharmshila Devi @ Dharmshila Kumari, Rahul Singh and Chintu Singh are the petitioners whereas Criminal Miscellaneous No.41302 of 2014 wherein Ravi Ranjan Singh @

Pappu Singh is the petitioner commonly originate out of Complaint Case no.226C of 2012, pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, Patna wherein cognizance has been taken under Section 304B of the I.P.C. along with other allied Sections, accordingly, being heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.

Complainant, father of deceased, Sonia filed Complaint petition disclosing therein that Sonia was married with Ravi Ranjan Singh @ Pappu Singh on 07.06.2011 and gone to her Sasural where after sometime, she was subjected to torture in order to procure Rs.1,50,000/- as dowry. It has also been disclosed that after sometime, she was forced to leave the place and accordingly, she stayed at his place where the accused came on 01.03.2012 and Bidai was effected on 02.03.2012. It has also been alleged that on 03.03.2012, he was informed that deceased died on account of bus accident.

It has been submitted on behalf of petitioners that the deceased was pregnant and she delivered a child on 03.03.2012. On account of profuse bleeding, she unfortunately died and for that, the husband immediately informed Nasriganj Police Station whereupon U. D. Case No.01 of 2012 was registered, post mortem was conducted and then, dead body was

disposed of. It has also been submitted that nascent child was shifted to B.H.U., unfortunately during course of treatment, he also died. No document has been annexed to support the same, save and except Annexure-2, the post mortem report which is not going to support the case of the petitioners. However, after going through the Complaint petition, it is apparent that complainant had not mentioned presence of petitioners, Dharmshila Devi, Rahul Singh and Chintu Singh specifically to have their presence at his place, accompanied the deceased and further, was in company of deceased even at the time of her death as alleged by the complainant. That being so, petitioners Dharmshila Devi @ Dharmshila Kumari, Rahul Singh and Chintu Singh each are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.

10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, Patna in connection with Complaint Case no.226 of 2012, in event of their arrest/ surrender within four weeks subject to condition, so incorporated, under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

With regard to petitioner, Ravi Ranjan Singh @ Pappu Singh, presence of prima facie case against him as well as

having his submission without any authentication did not justify his prayer for anticipatory bail.

Consequent thereupon, the same is rejected.

(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J) Vikash/- U T