Binod Roy And ANR v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 54915 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -31 Year- 2016 Thana -MAHILA THANA District- BEGUSARAI ======================================================
1. Binod Roy,
2. Niraj Roy Both son of Baijnath Roy, Resident of Village- Bhardwaj Nagar Ratanpur (Back of Dharamshala), P.S.- Town, District- Begusarai .... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ranjana Kumari wife of Bhramar Kumar, R/o Village - Sadaandpur, P.S. - Balia, District - Begusarai at present R/o Chankya Nagar, Mohmadpur Ward No. 38, P.S. - Town, District - Begusarai. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Karandeep Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Anurag Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2.
22-12-2016 Heard Sri Karandeep Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Ram Anurag Singh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.
Two petitioners, apprehending their arrest in Mahila P.S. Case No. 31 of 2016 registered for offence under Sections 498(A), 494 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.
By way of referring to F.I.R., it was submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that petitioners are not having direct relation with the husband of the informant, rather it has been alleged that petitioners are uncle of a lady, with whom the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.54915 of 2016 (2) dt.22-12-2016 2/3 husband of the informant had solemnized marriage. In this view of the matter, it has been argued that petitioners may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.
However, in the F.I.R., there is specific accusation by the informant that prior to solemnizing marriage by the husband of the informant with a lady namely Shikha Bharti, the informant had approached the petitioners and others not to do the same, but even then, the petitioners, who are uncle of the lady i.e. Shikha Bharti, participated in solemnizing the marriage of Shikha Bharti with the husband of the informant. The petitioners have been arrayed as accused in the F.I.R. with other accused persons. In view of the fact that petitioners are accused in the F.I.R. with specific accusation, the Court is of the opinion that they may not be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail. However, it goes without saying that if within a period of six weeks from today the petitioners appear before the court below and make a prayer for regular bail, the learned court below, without being prejudiced with this order, may examine the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, preferably, on the same date.
It is made clear that this Court has examined the matter only for consideration of power under Section 438 of the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.54915 of 2016 (2) dt.22-12-2016 3/3 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the learned court below would be at liberty to pass appropriate order.
The petition stands dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U T