Patna High CourtCR. MISC./1510/2017bail granted

Sonu Yadav @ Kunta Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2017-01-17Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1510 of 2017 (2) dt.17-01-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.1510 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -70 Year- 2016 Thana -MAGADH UNIVERSITY District- GAYA ====================================================== Sonu Yadav @ Kunta Yadav, S/O Deo Kishun Yadav, Resident of VillageHaridaspur Mokari, Police Station- Magadh University, District- Gaya. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt. Pushpa Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 17-01-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner is accused in connection with Magadh University P.S. Case No. 70 of 2016 registered under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The accusation is of torturing of sister of informant by this petitioner being the husband due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry and ousting her from Sasural house.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, due to misunderstanding in between the petitioner and his wife, sister of informant, the present case has been lodged with false allegation by the informant. It is further submitted that petitioner is in custody since 02.09.2016.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1510 of 2017 (2) dt.17-01-2017 Having regard to the facts and the circumstances of the case, the petitioner above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the S.D.J.M., Gaya, in connection with Magadh University P.S. Case No. 70 of 2016. Out of two sureties, one surety must be the close relative of the petitioner.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- U T