Om Prakash Gupta And ORS v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.42577 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -636 Year- 2017 Thana -SASARAM NAGAR District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ======================================================
1. Om Prakash Gupta son of Late Mukhlal Sah resident of Mohalla - Idgah Dehri On Sone, P.S. Dehri (Town), District Rohtas.
2. Gupteshwar Prasad Gupta son of Bifan Sah
3. Manorma Devi wife of Gupteshwar Prasad Gupta
4. Sushil Kumar Gupta son of Gupteshwar Prasad Gupta
5. Deepu @ Deepak Kumar Gupta son of Gupteshwar Prasad Gupta
6. Sunita Kumari @ Sunita Devi D/o Gupteshwar Prasad Gupta All residents of village Hurka, P.S. Tilauthu, District Rohtas. .... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Sandhya Kumari wife of Santosh Kumar Gupta, daughter of Jawahar Prasad Gupta resident of Mohalla Bhartiganj Basti More, P.O. and P.S. Sasaram (Town), District Rohtas.
.... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghunandan Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ataur Rahman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 15-09-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the informant and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Sasaram Town P.S. Case No. 636 of 2017 for the offences instituted under Sections 341, 323, 498(A), 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The allegation against the petitioners is of committing torture upon the victim due to non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42577 of 2017 (2) dt.15-09-2017 2/2 the petitioners have got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioners. The petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case. The case is triable by the Magistrate. The petitioners are in-laws of the informant. They are separate in mess and property from the husband of the victim. The petitioners have further relied upon the judgment of this court, in the case of Md. Naimul Haque Ansari Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2006(3) PLJR 182.
On behalf of the State and counsel for the informant, it has been submitted that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioners above named be released on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today in connection with Sasaram Town P.S. Case No. 636 of 2017 on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M, Rohtas at Sasaram, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(Sudhir Singh, J) Amit/- U T