Ramjeet Ram And ORS v. State Of Bihar And ANR

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40926 of 2016 (3) dt.05-10-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.40926 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -3630 Year- 2015 Thana -SARAN COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSARAN ======================================================

1. Ramjeet Ram S/o Late Sheo Sharan Ram

2. Ajay Ram

3. Arbind Ram Both S/o Ramjeet Ram, all resident of village - Matkhawa, P.S. Garkha, District - Saran at Chapra .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Chanda Devi W/o Chattu Ram resident of village - Janki Nagar, P.S. Garkha, District - Saran at Chapra .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Basant Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ram Sumiran Roy ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 05-10-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The three petitioners, (1) Ramjeet Ram, (2) Ajay Ram and (3) Arbind Ram, apprehend their arrest in Complaint Case No. 3630 of 2015 (Tr. No. 620 of 2016) under Sections 323, 406, 420 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

The complainant filed the complaint alleging that two years ago, she paid bribe of Rs. 40,000/- to these petitioners for passing scheme of Indira Awas in the name of complainant. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are not employee of the block nor they are government servants in any office. In fact, they are co-villager and are also

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40926 of 2016 (3) dt.05-10-2016 farmers. The third sons of the petitioner No. 1 is a Compounder of a Doctor where the complainant had gone for treatment and in connection with payment, there was dispute between third son and the complainant, therefore, the complaint case has been filed. 5.

From perusal of the complaint, it appears that the allegation against the petitioners is that Rs. 40,000/- was paid two years ago. It is admitted fact that the petitioners are not employee in any office. There is no reason as to why the complainant would have given Rs. 40,000/-.

6.

Considering the above facts and circumstances, I direct the petitioners, above named, to surrender before the court below within one month from today and on their so surrendering before the court below, the court below shall release the petitioners, above named, on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Saran at Chapra in Complaint Case No. 3630 of 2015 (Tr. No. 620 of 2016). brajesh/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) U T