Raju Sah @ Raju Barnwal And ORS v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.55846 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -2094 Year- 2014 Thana -GOPALGANJ COMPLAINT CASE DistrictGOPALGANJ ======================================================

1. Raju Sah @ Raju Barnwal, S/o Dhanukhdhari Sah,

2. Dhanukhdhari Sah S/o Late Shivmangal Sah,

3. Girja Devi W/o Dhanukhdhari Sah,

4. Gunjan Sah @ Gunjan Barnwal S/o Dhanukdhari Sah, All R/o VillageSahjanwa, P.S.- Kateya, District- Gopalganj. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Shila Devi D/o Ram Narain Sah, W/o Raju Sah @ Raju Barnwal, R/o Village- Sahjanwa, P.S.- Kateya, District- Gopalganj, At present R/o Village- Bagheji, P.S.- Barauli, District- Gopalganj. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satyendra Rai For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Nazir Ansari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 23-11-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case instituted under Sections 498A and 406 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 petitioners that the petitioners have got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.55846 of 2017 (2) dt.23-11-2017 2/2 petitioners. The petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioner no.1 is husband of the victim, petitioner no.2 and 3 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the victim and petitioner no.4 is Dewar of the victim. The case is triable by the Magistrate. Due to petty family dispute, the present case has been instituted against the petitioners. 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 Complaint Case.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner above named be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today in connection with Complaint Case No.2094/2014, Tr. No.589/2017 on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M.-XIV, Gopalganj, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Sudhir Singh, J) Amit/- U T