Neeraj Bakshi @ Niraj Bakshi v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.34015 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -3054 Year- 2015 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPATNA ====================================================== Neeraj Bakshi @ Niraj Bakshi Son of Sri Jotgendra Pal Sharma @Jogendra Pd. Sharma Resident of B-24, N.C.L. Colony Gorbi, P.O. and P.S. Morba, District - Singrauli, State- Madhya Pradesh.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Dolly Bakshi Wife of Sri Neeraj Bakshi @ Niraj Bakshi and Daughter of Sri Sanjay Sudan Resident of -Type- III, B-24, N.C.L. Colony, Gorbi, P.S. Morba, District- Singrauli, Madhya Pradesh, Presently residing in flat No. 4E, Gobind Enclave, Chandmari Road,Behind Panch Mandir , P.O. and P.S. Kankarbagh, District- Patna.

.... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sushant Praveer, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Nirala, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 20-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 3054/2015 for the offences instituted under Sections 323, 504, 506, 406, 498(A), 120(B) of the IPC and 3⁄4 of the D.P. Act in which cognizance has been taken under Section 498(A) of the IPC.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that the accused persons including the petitioner tortured the complainant due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34015 of 2017 (2) dt.20-07-2017 2/2 petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering with the witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The case is triable by the Magistrate. He has falsely been implicated in the present case due to petty family dispute. 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. It has further been submitted that the matter has already been compromised between the parties vide Annexure-2 to the present application. On behalf of the learned counsel for the State, it has been submitted that the petitioner is named in the complaint case.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner above named, be released on bail in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today in connection with Complaint Case No. 3054 (C) of 2015 on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sub Judge-XV-cum-A.C.J.M., Patna, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

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