Bijay Kant Rai v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.49506 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -877 Year- 2012 Thana -BEGUSARAI COMPLAINT CSAE DistrictBEGUSARAI ====================================================== Bijay Kant Rai, Son of Late Ram Lakhan Rai Resident of Village - Dhamaun, P.S.- Patori, District - Samastipur .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Hare Krishna Prasad, Son of Shrimana Yadav, Resident of Village - Kasaha, P.S.- Barauni, District - Begusarai .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== With Criminal Miscellaneous No.49797 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -877 Year- 2012 Thana -BEGUSARAI COMPLAINT CSAE DistrictBEGUSARAI ======================================================
1. Rajeev Ranjan @ Rajeev Kumar, Son of Late Jay Kiran Rai
2. Shushila Devi, Wife of Late Jay Kiran Rai Both are residents of Village - Nauachak, P.S. - Sarairanjan, District - Samastipur.
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Hare Krishna Prasad, Son of Shrimana Yadav, Resident of Village - Kasaha, P.S. - Barauni, District - Begusarai. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :
(In Cr.Misc. No.49506 of 2015) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Narain Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Roy 1, APP (In Cr.Misc. No.49797 of 2015) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Narain Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Rina Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 3 30-11-2015 Heard Mr. S.N.P. Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49506 of 2015 (3) dt.30-11-2015 2 / 2 the petitioners in these two applications, Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya for the State and Mr. Hare Krishna Prasad, the complainant of the present case.
The respective petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 877C of 2012 in which cognizance has been taken under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The petitioners were granted provisional bail by this Court vide order dated 04.11.2015.
The complainant has submitted that since negotiation for compromise is going on between the parties, he does not intend to oppose the application filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Be that as it may, regard being had to the nature of the offence and the stand of the complainant, the provisional bail granted to the petitioners of these two cases, vide order dated 04.11.2015, is hereby confirmed.
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.) Sanjeet/- U T