Samrat Vishal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50602 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-955 Year-2020 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Jamui ====================================================== SAMRAT VISHAL Son of Avinash Kumar Sinha Resident of Mohalla - New Tola, Bihari, P.O. and P.S.- Jamui, Dist.- Jamui. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Bihar 2.

Shriti Sinha Wife of Samrat Vishal Resident of Mohalla - New Tola, Bihari, P.O. and P.S.- Jamui, Dist.- Jamui. At present residing with her father namely Anand Kumar Sinha, Resident of Mohalla - Babu Bank, P.O. and P.S.- Jjajha, Dist.- Jamui, Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Prabhat Ranjan Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.A.G.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 27-10-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case no. 955 C/2020 instituted for the offence under Sections 323, 324, 325, 326, 379, 498A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act. As per allegation in the complaint petition, petitioner along with his family members has tortured in various ways due to non-fulfillment of he has ousted her from her matrimonial home after snatching her belongings along with her handicapped child.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is husband of the informant and has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50602 of 2021(2) dt.27-10-2021 2/2 been falsely implicated in this case. He has never demanded any thing from the informant. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is ready to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance to the opposite party no. 2 and her child.

Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer of bail.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay Rs. 4,000/- to the opposite party no. 2 and her child as maintenance, this Court is inclined to enlarge him on bail. The petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below within a period of four weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrender in connection with Complaint Case no. 955C/2020 he will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned SDJM, Jamui subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) sushma/- U