Chandan Kumar v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.22449 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1730 Year- 2017 Thana -SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- SAMASTIPUR ====================================================== Chandan Kumar, Son of Sita Ram Mahto, Resident of Village Chatauna Tole, Gangapur, P.S. Samastipur (Mufassil), District- Samastipur. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Puja Kumari, Wife of Chandan Kumar, P.S.- Muffassil, DistrictSamastipur, Daughter of Sundeshwar Tiwari, P.S.- Muffasil, District Samastipur.

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Kumar Roy, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Dr. Indiwar Kumari, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 25-04-2018 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)/34 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 nonfulfilment of demand of dowry. An opportunity for reconciliation between the parties was given by order dated 16.04.2018. It has submitted by learned counsels for the parties that process of reconciliation has failed.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22449 of 2018 (3) dt.25-04-2018 2/2 It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case due to petty family dispute. There is no allegation of tampering with the witnesses alleged against the petitioner. 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. Samastipur, in connection with Complaint Case No. 1730 of 2017, T.R. No. 2907 of 2018, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

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