Amarjeet Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46100 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-172 Year-2010 Thana- PAROO District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== 1.

AMARJEET SAHNI S/o JALANDHAR SAHANI R/o VILLAGERAGHUNATHPUR, P.S-PAROO, DISTRICT-MUZAFFARPUR. 2.

RAVINDRA SAHNI S/o JALANDHAR SAHANI R/o VILLAGERAGHUNATHPUR, P.S-PAROO, DISTRICT-MUZAFFARPUR. 3.

RANJEET SAHNI S/o JALANDHAR SAHANI R/o VILLAGERAGHUNATHPUR, P.S-PAROO, DISTRICT-MUZAFFARPUR. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arvind Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 29-06-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest for the offences alleged under Section 304(B) and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in connection with Paroo P.S.Case No. 172 of 2010 (G.R.No. 1791 of 2010).

As per allegation, the marriage of the informant's daughter was solemnized with petitioner no.3 Ranjeet Sahni in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46100 of 2021(3) dt.29-06-2022 2/3 the year 2006. The accused persons subjected the daughter of the informant to cruelty for non-fulfilment of the demand of a motor-cycle. The informant got an information that the accused persons had disappeared the dead-body of the deceased after killing her.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that all the witnesses examined during the course of investigation did not support the prosecution case. The SDPO, in view of insufficiency of evidence, directed the I.O. to submit the final form, but differing with the view of the SDPO, the SSP directed to file charge sheet without any material in the case diary.

Considering the above facts and circumstances, specially the fact that the witnesses did not support the occurrence and the wife of the informant has filed an affidavit in the court below that due to some misunderstanding the case was registered, let the petitioner, above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender within four weeks from the date of communication of this order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) each, with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned ACJM 3rd, West Muzaffarpur in connection with Paroo P.S.Case No. 172 of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46100 of 2021(3) dt.29-06-2022 3/3 2010 (G.R.No. 1791 of 2010), subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr. P.C.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioners within the stipulated time as provided hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) HR/- U T