Maheshwar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48897 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-123 Year-2021 Thana- NOORSARAI District- Nalanda ====================================================== 1.
Maheshwar Yadav Son of Ram Khelawan Yadav @ Ram Kushun Yadav Village -Mathurapur, P.S.- Noorsarai, District -Nalanda 2.
Sakuntala Devi @ Pamo Devi Wife of Maheshwar Yadav VillageMathurapur, P.S- Noorsarai, District -Nalanda 3.
Babloo Kumar Son of Maheshwar Yadav Village -Mathurapur, P.SNoorsarai, District -Nalanda 4.
Surbhi Kumari Daughter of Maheshwar Yadav Village -Mathurapur, P.S.- Noorsarai, District -Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Sukanya Kumari @ Simpi, Daughter of Late Rajesh Kumar R/o VillageMilkipur, P.S.- Rahui, Dist- Nalanda ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Raj Kishor Prasad, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 20-08-2024 Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Noorsarai P.S. Case No. 123 of 2021 dated 16.04.2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 379, 308, 498(A) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and later on, Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were added.
3. Mr. Raj Kishor Prasad, learned counsel appearing
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48897 of 2024(2) dt.20-08-2024 2/3 for the petitioners submits that all the petitioners are in-laws of the informant and they have no concern with the affairs of the informant and the allegation of demand of dowry and torture due to non-fulfillment of the dowry is entirely false and fabricated and there is no injury to the victim with regard to the allegation of assault levelled in the FIR. Learned counsel further submits that the informant used to talk with some unknown person on her mobile phone for hours and when she was refrained from doing so, she left her matrimonial house on her own will. It is further submitted that in fact, the husband is ready to keep his wife but the informant herself is not willing to live with him as she has already solemnized second marriage and the present FIR has been lodged by the informant only to squeeze money out of the petitioners.
4. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case as well as the above noted submissions and mainly the facts that all the petitioners are in-laws of the informant and against the Petitioners No.1, 3 and 4 there is no specific allegation though, against Petitioner No. 2, mother-in-law of the informant, there is specific allegation of having pushed the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48897 of 2024(2) dt.20-08-2024 3/3 informant to the ground but as per submission made by petitioners' counsel there is no injury to the informant and during investigation, petitioners were given the benefit of Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and against them, investigation has been completed, in my opinion, in the said circumstances, the petitioners deserve to the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, let the petitioners named-above, in the event of their arrest/surrender before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail in connection with Noorsarai P.S. Case No. 123 of 2021 on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(Shailendra Singh, J) maynaz/- U T