Jeetendra Kumar @ Raju @ Jitendra Gupta @ Jitendra Kumar v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.32979 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -975 Year- 2015 Thana -JEHANABAD COMPLAINT CASE DistrictJEHANABAD ====================================================== Jeetendra Kumar @ Raju @ Jitendra Gupta @ Jitendra Kumar, S/o Sri Gopal Prasad, R/o Mohalla- Lohia Nagar, Munna Chak, Opposite Rajendra Nagar Terminal, P.S.- Patrakarnagar, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Moni Jaiswal @ Moni Devi, W/o Jeetendra Kumar @ Raju, D/o Sri Shyam Prasad Jaiswal, R/o Mohalla- P.G. Road Uta, P.S.- Jehanabad, District- Jehanabad.
.... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. S.M. Rahman, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : None.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 20-07-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. None appears on behalf of opposite party no. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case for the offence registered under Section 498(A) of the IPC. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the accused persons including the petitioner tortured the victim due to nonfulfilment of demand of dowry. Vide order dated 06.06.2018, the matter was referred to the Mediation & Conciliation Centre, Patna High Court, Patna. As per report of the Mediator, mediation has failed. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32979 of 2018 (3) dt.20-07-2018 2/2 petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering with the witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case due to petty family dispute. The case is triable by the Magistrate. 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.
On behalf of the learned counsel for the State, it has been submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R/ complaint case.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M. Jehanabad, in connection with Complaint Case No. 975 of 2015, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
U.K./- (Sudhir Singh, J) U T