Rahul Kumar v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.1484 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -543 Year- 2016 Thana -ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Rahul Kumar, son of Markandey Singh @ Markande Singh, resident of Village- Shahmal Khaira, P.S.- Kochas, District- Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Pinki Devi, wife of Rahul Kumar and daughter of Sri Jag Narayan Singh, resident of Village- Shahmal Khaira, P.S.- Kochas, DistrictRohtas. At present resident of Village- Sirisiyan, P.S.- Kargaha, District- Rohtas.

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajani Kant Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Bisheshwar Ram, A.P.P. For the Complainant : Mr. Babu Nandan Prasad, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 16-01-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case for the offence registered under Sections 498(A) of the IPC and 4 of the D.P. Act.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that the accused persons including the petitioner tortured the victim due to nonfulfillment of demand of dowry. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1484 of 2018 (2) dt.16-01-2018 2/2 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 counsels for the State and 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 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. Rohtas at Sasaram , in connection with Complaint Case No. 543 of 2016 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

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