Amit Ranjan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53130 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2754 Year-2016 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== Amit Ranjan, aged about 43 years, Male, Son of Ajit Kumar Verma, R/O - 801, Artur-2, Supertech Cizar Suites, Sector - Omi Corm-1, P.S.- Dadari, Greater Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar (U.P.) ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

Tannu Priya, aged about 32 years, Female, Wife of Amit Ranjan, D/O - Preet Ranajan Srivastva, Resident of - Shanti Niwas, Anisabad, Bye Pass, Harnichak, P.S.- Beur, District- Patna ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Rajneesh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ashraf Ansari, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 16-11-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 2754 (C) of 2016, registered for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Petitioner happens to be husband of opposite party no. 2 and admittedly, the marriage of petitioner with opposite party no. 2 was solemnized in the year 2007 but the present case was lodged in the year 2016. However, prior to institution of the present case, it is informed that the opposite party no. 2 filed

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53130 of 2019(5) dt.16-11-2019 2/3 petition under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. against the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew my attention towards Solemn Affirmation of the opposite party no. 2 and submits that the opposite party no. 2, herself, states that she does not want to lead her conjugal life and she is only interested in compensation.

Although, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 opposed the prayer but considering the facts and circumstances as well as submissions of the parties, I think it proper to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, accordingly, this anticipatory bail petition is allowed and it is ordered that petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest/surrender within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order to the court concerned, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna in connection with Complaint Case No. 2754 (C) of 2016, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the CrPC.

(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) Rajeev Kumar Ranjeet/- U T

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53130 of 2019(5) dt.16-11-2019 3/3