Ravindra Prasad @ Ravi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60173 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3784 Year-2017 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== 1.
RAVINDRA PRASAD @ RAVI Son of Late Niteshwar Prasad C/o Binay Kumar, Resident of Mohalla-Sudhi Tola, P.S.-Pirbahore, District-Patna. 2.
Smt. Sanju Devi Wife of Ravindra Prasad @ Ravi C/o Binay Kumar Resident of Mohalla-Sudhi Tola, P.S.-Pirbahore, District-Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Vinit Kumar Son of Devkant Prasad Resident of Mohalla Bahadurpur Colony, Sector-7 Flat No.48, Block No.-5, P.S.- Agam Kuan, District- Patna. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Binoy Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Manoj Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 23-09-2019 Petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 3784(C) of 2017 in which cognizance has been taken under Sections 120B, 493, 494, 495, 498 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
As per Complaint Case there is allegation against son of the petitioners that he solemnized marriage with wife of complainant though he is married from before. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that allegation is against their son and they have falsely been implicated in this case.
Heard learned APP and learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60173 of 2019(2) dt.23-09-2019 2/2 complainant, who has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
In view of above facts and circumstances, let petitioners, in the event of arrest or surrender, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Sukul Ram, Sub-Judge-cum-A.C.J.M.-XIII, Patna, in connection with Complaint Case No. 3784(C) of 2017, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and further condition is that one of the bailors of the petitioners shall be a local person having sufficient immoveable property within the jurisdiction of the court concerned. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/- U T