Raj Kumar Prasad Yadav @ Raj Kumar Prasad And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.40426 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -98 Year- 2017 Thana -MAHILA P.S. District- NALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF) ======================================================

1. Raj Kumar Prasad Yadav @ Raj Kumar Prasad, Son of Baiju Prasad Yadav.

2. Naresh Prasad, Son of Raj Kumar Prasad Yadav @ Raj Kumar Prasad.

3. Rajesh Prasad, Son of Raj Kumar Prasad Yadav @ Raj Kumar Prasad.

4. Parwati Devi, Wife of Raj Kumar Prasad Yadav @ Raj Kumar Prasad.

5. Anju Devi, Wife of Sudhir Prasad.

6. Meena Devi, D/o Raj Kumar Prasad Yadav @ Raj Kumar Prasad. All Resident of Village- Chhiri, P.S.- Fatehpur, District- Gaya. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr. Lilawati Singh, Advocate. For the State : Smt. Pushpa Sinha, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Raj Kishore Prasad, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 25-08-2017 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners, informant and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 98/2017 for the offences instituted under Sections 498(A), 323, 341, 504, 506/34 of the IPC and 4/5 of the D.P. Act.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that the accused persons including the petitioners tortured the informant due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40426 of 2017 (2) dt.25-08-2017 2/2 It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering with the witnesses alleged against the petitioners. They have falsely been implicated in the present case due to petty family dispute. The case is triable by the Magistrate. 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.

It has been submitted by learned counsels for the State and the informant that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioners above named, be released on bail in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 98/2017 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M. Nalanda at Biharsharif, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

U.K./- (Sudhir Singh, J) U T