Sonu Chaupal v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.36191 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -208 Year- 2015 Thana -MADHUBANI COMPLAINT CASE DistrictMADHUBANI ======================================================

1. Sonu Chaupal, S/o Late Dukhi Chaupal, Resident of Village- Tamuria, P.S.- Lakhnaur, District- Madhubani.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Ghurani Devi, W/o Sonu Chaupal, Resident of Village- Tamuria, P.S.- Lakhnaur, District- Madhubani, at present D/o- Puni Chaupal, Resident of Village- Belaucha, P.S.- Lakhnaur, District- Madhubani. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manish Kumar No 13 For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umesh Lal Verma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 10-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with C.R. Case No. 208 of 2015 for the offence instituted under Sections 307, 148, 323, 342, 379, 498(A), 120B, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act but the cognizance has been taken only under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioner is of committing torture upon the victim due to non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36191 of 2017 (02) dt.10-08-2017 2/2 petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. The case is triable by the Magistrate. Due to petty family dispute, the present case has been instituted against the petitioner. The petitioner has 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 petitioner is named in the Complaint Case.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner above named be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today in connection with C.R. Case No. 208 of 2015 on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Jhanjharpur (Madhubani), subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Sudhir Singh, J) Amit/- U T