Dinkar Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.62955 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-183 Year-2018 Thana- GHORASAHAN District- East Champaran ====================================================== Dinkar Rai, Son of Yodha Rai @ Yadav Rai, resident of Village- Nimoiya, P.S.- Ghorasahan, District- East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sri S.M. Rahman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 12-10-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in connection with Ghorasahan P.S. Case No. 183 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under Section498(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and 3⁄4 of Dowry.

Allegation against the petitioner is of torturing the informant for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and ousted her.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. There is general and omnibus allegation against petitioner. It has been further submitted that informant was always pressuring petitioner to demand family partition and when petitioner did not agree she deserted him of her own sweet will

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.62955 of 2018(2) dt.12-10-2018 2/2 and volition. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 22.07.2018.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner named above be released on bail upon furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sikrahana at Dhaka, East Champaran, in connection with Ghorasahan P.S. Case No. 183 of 2018 subject to the conditions that:-

(1) Bailors should be local having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the court concerned.

(2) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be present on each and every date fixed by the court and his absence on two consecutive dates without proper and sufficient reason the trial court will be at liberty to cancel his bail bond.

(3) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses of the case, in that case, prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

(S. Kumar, J) veena/- U T