Jagdish Orawn @ Jagdish Uron @ Jagdish Uraon v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.54174 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -2073 Year- 2016 Thana -KATIHAR COMPLAINT CASE DistrictKATIHAR ====================================================== JAGDISH ORAWN @ JAGDISH URON @ JAGDISH URAON, Son of Late Jamuna Uraon, Resident of Jamun Tola, Hasanganj, P.S.- Hasanganj, District- Katihar.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Niro Devi, Wife of Jagdish Orawn @ Jagdish Uraon, Resident of Village- Sadpur Rajwara, P.S.- Rautara, District- Katihar. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Bimal Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh Baranwal, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 08-01-2018 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 494, 498(A) of the IPC and 4 of the D.P. Act.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that the accused persons including the petitioner tortured the victim due to nonfulfillment of demand of dowry. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.54174 of 2017 (3) dt.08-01-2018 2/2 is no allegation of tampering with the witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present 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 counsels for the State and opposite party no. 2, it has been submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R/ complaint case.

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. Katihar, in connection with Complaint Case No. 2073 of 2016, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

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