Ram Pravesh Sahani v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.42415 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -147 Year- 2016 Thana -CHAKIA DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ====================================================== Ram Pravesh Sahani, Son of Ramadhar Sahani, Resident of VillageGawandra, P.S.- Chakiya, District- East Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Dahari Mahto, Son of Bachcha Mahto, Resident of Village- Saratpur, P.S.- Jai Road, District- Morigaw (Asam).

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uday Kumar Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Umesh Lal Verma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 28-11-2017 Heard the counsels for the parties.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Chakiya P.S. Case No. 147 of 2016 dated 21.06.2016 instituted for the offences under Sections 498(A), 365, 323, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The petitioner is the husband of the victim Radhika Devi with whom he had married in a temple on 05.06.2012 at Assam. The father of the victim/wife has alleged that after sometimes of the marriage, the petitioner and others informed him that the entire family is planning to shift to Bihar. Later, the daughter of the informant communicated to her father that she was being pressurized for bringing additional dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. The informant was later made to understand that his daughter and

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42415 of 2017 (4) dt.28-11-2017 grand-son have been made to return to Assam. When the daughter and the grand son of the informant did not come to Assam, the informant came looking for his daughter and grand son but did not get any clue. During the course of investigation, it came to light that the victim/wife has already reached her parents' home and the investigating officer of the case had a telephonic conversation with her. In paragraph nos. 11 and 28 of the case diary, the investigating officer of the case has recorded that he had a talk with the wife of the petitioner who has expressed her unwillingness to come back to her matrimonial home and that she is not concerned about the fate of the case.

The petitioner is in custody since 06.04.2017. Taking into account the aforesaid facts, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

The petitioner above named is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, East Champaran in connection with Chakiya P.S. Case No. 147 of 2016.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) KKSINHA/- U T