Manager Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.6213 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -88 Year- 2016 Thana -SAHAJITPUR District- SARAN ======================================================

1. Manager Pandey, Son of late Ram Ayodhya Pandey, Resident of Village Manjigaon, Goan, P.S. Sahajitpur, District- Saran. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kaushal Kishore Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Parmanand Prasad For the informant : Mr. V.K. Sharma. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 16-02-2017 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction of name of the village of the petitioner. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sahajitpur P.S. Case No. 88 of 2016, registered for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307/34 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that from perusal of F.I.R. itself, it will appear that the present case has been lodged against the petitioner only to teach a lesson to petitioner and his family members as earlier also a case under Section 498A was filed and thereafter, the petitioner and his family members were keeping the girl with themselves with full honour and dignity but later on she left the house out of her own sweet will and lodged the present false case against the petitioner, who happens to be her father-in-law Heard learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6213 of 2017 (2) dt.16-02-2017 2/2 informant, they have opposed the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that earlier also a informant has filed a case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code but after compromise, she started living in the house of petitioner and his family members but after some time, they again started torturing the informant and forced her to leave the house and when the family members of the informant went to pacify the dispute, they were also assaulted by the petitioner and his family members. Having heard both sides, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail, it is, accordingly, rejected.

However, if the petitioner surrenders before the court below and pray for regular bail, which will be considered by the learned court below taking into account that the petitioner is the father-in-law of the informant and also other materials on record and shall pass an appropriate order, if possible, on the same day, without being prejudiced by the order of this Court. With the above observation, this application is disposed of.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U T