Arvind Kumar v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.5535 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -57 Year- 2017 Thana -MAHILA P.S. District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Arvind Kumar, Son of Awadh Lal Prasad, Resident of Mohalla- Babanagar Sindiket, P.S.- Buxar, District- Buxar.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Priya Kumari daughter of Raja Ram Prasad, Resident of VillageNawadih, P.S.- Amjhore, District- Rohtas. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajani Kant Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Singh -5, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 09-02-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case for the offence registered under Sections 498(A), 341, 323, 504, 406, 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 petitioner tortured the victim due to nonfulfilment of demand of dowry. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering with the witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5535 of 2018 (3) dt.09-02-2018 2/2 case due to petty family dispute. The case is triable by the Magistrate. The petitioner has 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 petitioner is named in the F.I.R/ complaint case.

On behalf of the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, it has been submitted that the opposite party no. 2 does not want to reside with the petitioner.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner 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) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M. Dehri, Rohtas, in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 57 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