Rajesh Bharti @ Ramesh Bharti And ORS v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.60536 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -939 Year- 2016 Thana -KHAGARIA COMPALINT CASE DistrictKHAGARIA ======================================================

1. Rajesh Bharti @ Ramesh Bharti, S/O Mangal Singh.

2. Khushbu Kumari, W/O Ramesh Bharti.

3. Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar Singh, S/O Narendra Prasad Singh.

4. Anita Kumari @ Anita Devi, W/O Sanjay Kumar Singh. 1 to 4 R/V Bikrampur, P.S. Cheriya Bariyarpur, District-Begusarai.

5. Vikash Kumar, S/O Late Chotan Singh, R/V- Dumra, P.S. Maranchi, District-Patna.

.... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Sunaina Devi, W/O Raunak Kumar, D/O Ramesh Rai, R/V- Chatra, P.O. Mansi, P.S. Muffasil, District-Khagaria. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr. Chandan Kumar Kashyap, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Pranav Kumar, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Mukul Prasad, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 12-12-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case for the offence registered under Sections 498(A) of the IPC and 3⁄4 of the D.P. Act.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that the accused persons including the petitioners tortured the victim due to non-

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.60536 of 2017 (2) dt.12-12-2017 2/3 fulfillment of demand of dowry.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering with the witnesses alleged against the petitioners. The petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case due to petty family dispute. The petitioners are in-laws of the victim. They are separate in mess and property from the husband of the victim. The case is triable by the Magistrate. The petitioners have 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, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, it has been submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R/ complaint case. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioners 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) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M. Khagaria, in connection with Complaint Case No. 939C of 2016, subject to

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.60536 of 2017 (2) dt.12-12-2017 3/3 the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

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