Ram Chandra Sahni And ORS v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.22923 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -119 Year- 2016 Thana -ROSERA District- SAMASTIPUR ======================================================
1. Ram Chandra Sahni, son of Late Tilak Sahni,
2. Ajeet Sahni, son of Ramchandra Sahni,
3. Bihula Devi, wife of Ram Chandra Sahni, all resident of Village- Rahua, P.S.- Rosera, District- Samastipur.
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 25-08-2017 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioners and the leaned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Rosera P.S. Case No. 119 of 2016, registered under Sections 341, 323, 325 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the A.C.J.M. Rosera, Samastipur. The accusation is that due to non-fulfillment of demand of TV and Motorcycle, the informant was being tortured and she was also ousted from her matrimonial house by her husband and other in-laws regarding which Complaint Case no. 99 of 2011 was lodged in which prayer of bail was allowed by this Court with condition to keep the informant properly. In spite the order of this Court, the informant was again being tortured
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22923 of 2017 (3) dt.25-08-2017 2/2 and her husband Sujeet Sahni did not appear in the trial court on 08.03.2016. It is alleged that on 09.03.2016, the informant was brutally assaulted by her husband and other in-laws (Petitioners) causing fracture injury to her. Thereafter, she was taken by her father and she was treated at the clinic of Dr. Mahesh Lakhotia. Later on, Panchayati was convened and accused persons assured to obey the decision of Panchayat and, therefore, case was not filed by her father considering the future of the informant. On 07.04.2016, in the evening, Sujit Sahni, husband of the informant and in-laws tried to administer Salphas tablet to informant, but she anyhow saved herself.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are father-in-law, brother-in-law and mother-in-law of the informant and they have falsely been implicated in this case without any specific overt act.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioners, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, their prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T