Ganauri Singh And ORS v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.2385 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -244 Year- 2014 Thana -SHEKHPURA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSEKHPURA ======================================================
1. Ganauri Singh S/o Late Tanik Singh
2. Manik @ Manik Chand Singh S/o Ganauri Singh,
3. Gautam @ Gautam Kumar S/o Ganauri Singh,
4. Pinky Kumari D/o Ganauri Singh, W/o Sri Manoj Kumar@ Manoj Ram
5. Anita Devi W/o Ganauri Singh All are Resident of Village-Sosandi, P.S.- Rahui, District-Nalanda at Present residing at R.Z.B.-1119, Sitapuri Part-2, New delhi, P.S.-Dabari, New Delhi .... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Savitri devi W/o Kishori Ram, Resident of Village-Teus, P.S.- Jairampur, District-sheikhpura.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Syed. Rizwanul Haque For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramchandra Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 10-02-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 244C of 2014, registered under Sections 147, 149, 323, 394, 379, 448 and 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation of complainant/O.P. No. 2 is that she performed the marriage of her son Manoj with petitioner No.4 Pinky Kumari, daughter of petitioner No.1 and 5 on the pressure of the other accused. After marriage, the complainant came to know about love affairs of Pinky with one Pradeep Raj due to that reason the marriage
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2385 of 2017 (2) dt.10-02-2017 2/3 was performed in hurriness as he was railway employee. Before 10 days of the occurrence Pinky (Petitioner) was left by her parents Petitioner Nos. 1 and 5 at house. The petitioner Pinky used to talk with her parents about some conspiracy and her mother. Petitioner No.5 also came on 26.02.2014, petitioner No.4 Pinky Kumar complained about abdomen pain, thereafter she moved for clinic of Dr. Premlata along with her mother (petitioner No.5) leaving her one pregnant daughter-in-law at the house. Thereafter, other accused came boarding on bolero and took two bags in which Pinky had already kept the ornaments and cash without the knowledge of family members, in spite of protest of her daughter-in-law, and came at the clinic of Dr. Premlata, where they started to abuse with her and also caused assault. When Kishori Ram her husband rushed to save then he was also assaulted and all of them boarded the Pinky in vehicle and moved from there.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in this case. Further submission is that petitioner No.1 and 5 are parents of petitioner No.4, whereas petitioner No. 2 and 3 are brother of petitioner No. 4 and all have been implicated due to dispute arose in between Pinky (petitioner No.4) and her husband Manoj son of the complainant only to give undue pressure.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioners, be released on bail, in the event of
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2385 of 2017 (2) dt.10-02-2017 3/3 their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sheikhpura in connection with Complaint Case No. 244C of 2014, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T