Sunil Sahani v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.49556 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1993 Year- 2013 Thana -VAISALI COMPLAINT CASE DistrictVAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ====================================================== Sunil Sahani S/o Pannu Sahani Resident of Village - Purania, P.S. Lalganj, District - Vaishali.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Rinku Devi Wife of Sunil Sahani D/o Hari Lal Sahani at present village - Sharma Amar, P.S. Bhagwanpur, Distt- Vaishali. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Hirday Prasad Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 23-04-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner, apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1993 of 2013 vide Trial No. 3161 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant was married to the petitioner and thereafter she had went to her inlaws' house. After the marriage, demand of Hero Honda motorcycle, colour T.V. and cash of Rs. 20,000/- was made from her by the members of the in-laws' family. On non-fulfillment of the dowry, she was subjected to torture and thereafter she was compelled to leave the house of her in-laws.

On behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the complainant. He has further submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. The

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49556 of 2014 (2) dt.23-04-2015 2/2 complainant never lived with the petitioner. Victim is a married woman hence, the second marriage with the petitioner is not valid in the eye of law.

The learned counsel for the State has submitted that there is a specific allegation made against the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid facts and the circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioner be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest or surrender in the court below within four weeks on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Complaint Case No. 1993 of 2013 vide Trial No. 3161 of 2014, subject to the conditions, as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

It is further directed to the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 1500/- every month in the court below, which shall be given to the complainant by the court below, failing which the court below is at liberty to take any appropriate step against the petitioner.

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