Ramnarayan Singh And ANR v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.14902 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1386 Year- 2015 Thana -GOPALGANJ COMPLAINT CASE DistrictGOPALGANJ ======================================================
1. Ramnarayan Singh, Son of Jugeshwar Singh,
2. Usha Devi, Wife of Ramanarayan Singh, Both resident of VillageAakopur Dakhin Tola, P.S. Siwan Muffasil (U.P- Mahadewa), DistrictSiwan. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Chandani @ Saroj Devi, Wife of Rakesh Kumar, R/o Village- Aakopur, Dakhin Tola, P.S. Siwan, Mufassil (OP- Mahadew), District- Siwan. At Present Daughter of Surendra Singh, R/o- Village- Harkhauli, Near Sahu Jain High School, P.S.- Mirganj, District- Gopalganj. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raju Prasad For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Atul Chandra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 06-04-2017 The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1386 of 2015, registered for offences punishable under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant. There is general and omnibus allegation against them.
Heard learned A.P.P. also.
Having heard both sides as also from perusal of
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14902 of 2017 (2) dt.06-04-2017 2/2 complaint petition, it appears that the husband was living outside and these petitioners and other accused persons made demand a motorcycle in dowry and due to non-fulfillment of the demand they started torturing the complainant. Her husband who lives abroad denied to keep her and also started making demand of dowry.
It further appears that her husband has filed a divorce suit against the complainant before Principal Judge, Family Court for dissolution of marriage which has been admitted. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected.
The petitioners are directed to surrender before the court below and make prayer for regular bail. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Ravi/- U T