Mohan Ram And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.42644 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -60 Year- 2017 Thana -MAHILA P.S District- SUPAUL ======================================================

1. Mohan Ram, Son of Late Neman Ram,

2. Laliya Devi, Wife of Mohan Ram,

3. Sanjay Ram @ Vikram @ Sanjay Kumar Ram, son of Mohan Ram.

4. Binod Ram, Son of Mohan Ram,

5. Anita Devi, Wife of Binod Ram,

6. Ranju Devi, Wife of Gajendra Ram,

7. Shishila Devi @ Sushila Devi, Wife of Sanjay Ram.

8. Amardeep Kumar, Son of Sanjay Ram, All resident of village- Sonak, P.S.- Supaul, District- Supaul.

.... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Naresh Kumar Mehta For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 15-09-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Supaul Mahila P.S. Case No. 60 of 2017 for the offences instituted under Sections 498(A), 448, 323, 441, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3⁄4 D.P. Act. The allegation against the petitioners is of committing torture upon the victim due to non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42644 of 2017 (2) dt.15-09-2017 2/2 the petitioners have got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioners. The petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case. The case is triable by the Magistrate. The petitioners are in-laws of the informant. They are separate in mess and property from the husband of the victim. The petitioners have further relied upon the judgment of this court, in the case of Md. Naimul Haque Ansari Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2006(3) PLJR 182.

On behalf of the State, it has been submitted that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioners above named be released on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today in connection with Supaul Mahila P.S. Case No. 60 of 2017 on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Supaul, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Sudhir Singh, J) Amit/- U T