Rahul Sharma And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.60992 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -35 Year- 2017 Thana -MAHILA PS District- AURANGABAD ======================================================

1. Rahul Sharma, Son of Ram Vinay Sharma.

2. Brijmani Devi, Wife of Ram Vinay Sharma.

3. Ram Vinay Sharma, Son of Late Bindeshwar Singh.

4. Suman Sharma, Wife of Rahul Sharma.

5. Raubin Kumar @ Robin, Son of Ram Vinay Sharma.

6. Nanhaki Devi, wife of Bindeshwar Singh, All are resident of VillageShekhpura, Police Station- Okari in the district of Jehanabad. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioners : Mr. Sushant Kumar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 15-12-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case for the offence registered under Sections 498(A), 323,307, 504, 506/34 of the IPC and 3⁄4 of the D.P. Act.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that the accused persons including the petitioners tortured the victim due to nonfulfillment of demand of dowry. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.60992 of 2017 (2) dt.15-12-2017 2/2 present case due to petty family dispute. There is no allegation of tampering with the witnesses alleged against the petitioners. There is no injury report to support the allegations made in the F.I.R. The petitioners are in-laws of the victim. 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 @ Naimul Haque Ansari & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2006(3) PLJR 182. On behalf of the learned counsel for the State, it has been submitted that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R/ complaint case.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioners above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M. Aurangabad, in connection with Aurangabad Mahila P.S. Case No. 35 of 2017, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. U.K./- (Sudhir Singh, J) U T