Ram Jivan Singh @ Rajiv Nayan Singh @ Pappu Singh @ Rajiv Nayan Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46493 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-357 Year-2023 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== Ram Jivan Singh @ Rajiv Nayan Singh @ Pappu Singh @ Rajiv Nayan Prasad Singh SON OF JITENDRA PRASAD SINGH VILLAGESABNIMA, PS- ATHMALGOLA, DIST- PATNA ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
KIRAN DEVI WIFE OF RAM JIVAN SINGH @ RAJIV NAYA SINGH @ PAPPU SINGH @ RAJIV NAYAN PRASAD SINGH VILLAGESABNIMA, PS- ATHMALGOLA, DIST- PATNA ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ashok Kumar Kashyap For the State :
Mr. Khurshid Anwar For Opposite Party No. 2:
Mr. Manish Kumar No. 2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 07-08-2024
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the Complainant-Opposite Party No. 2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 357(C) of 2023, in which cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case, as per the complaint petition filed
2/4 by the Opposite Party No. 2, is that the marriage of the Opposite Party No. 2 was solemnized with the petitioner about Thirty Two years back. She has three daughter, out of which one daughter is mentally disturbed. The petitioner has illegal relation with other women. The petitioner used to torture the complainant, both mentally and physically because she has three daughters only and no male child. The complainant has further alleged that the petitioner had tried to kill his second daughter.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence in the manner alleged and he has falsely been implicated in this case. However, without prejudice to the right and contention of the petitioner, and in order to maintain harmony in the family, the petitioner is ready and willing to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the Opposite Party No. 2 as living cost, subject to the final outcome of the present case as well as the matrimonial case, if any, pending and/or disposed between the parties.
5. Learned Counsel for the Complainant-Opposite Party No. 2 accepts the offer so made by learned Counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner may be directed
3/4 to deposit the said amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month in the bank account of the Complainant-Opposite Party No. 2, details of which shall be furnished by learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 to learned Counsel for the petitioner within fifteen days from today.
6. After having heard learned Counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the materials on record and the fact that the offer made by learned Counsel for the petitioner has been accepted by learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2, I am inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. This application is, accordingly, allowed.
8. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest/surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today, be released on bail, upon furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barh, Patna, in connection with Complaint Case No. 357(C) of 2023.
9. This is subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month in the bank
4/4 account of Opposite Party No. 2 positively, starting from 07th September, 2024.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) R. R Sinha/- U √ T √