Hadish Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2173 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-43 Year-2019 Thana- AGRER District- Rohtas ====================================================== 1.

HADISH ANSARI Son of Late Kurban Mian Resident of Village - Pokhraha, P.O. - Atimi, P.S.- Nasirganj, Distt - Rohtas. 2.

Md. Danish Ansari @ Danish Ansari Son of Hadish Ansari Resident of Village - Pokhraha, P.O. - Atimi, P.S.- Nasirganj, Distt - Rohtas. 3.

Hasina Bibi Wife of Hadish Ansari Resident of Village - Pokhraha, P.O. - Atimi, P.S.- Nasirganj, Distt - Rohtas.

... ... Petitioners

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Gulnaj Bano Wife of Azad Ansari Dokhtar Ajmeri Ansari Resident of Village - Nekra, P.S.- Agrer, Distt - Rohtas at Sasaram ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bishnu Kant Dubey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Jai Narain Thakur, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Md Jubair Ansari, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 16-01-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State as also learned counsel for the informant. The petitioners in this case who are the father-in-law, dewar and mother-in-law of opposite party no. 2 are seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Agrer P.S. Case No. 43 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 498(A), 406, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3⁄4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that because of matrimonial dispute between the opposite party no. 2 and her husband who happens to be the son of petitioner no. 1,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2173 of 2020(2) dt.16-01-2020 2/3 all these petitioners have been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submits that earlier there had been a settlement between the parties and in terms of settlement, O. P. No. 2 had received the money, jewelries and other articles and thereafter, the present case has been lodged. Learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State have opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail. According to them, these petitioners being the family members of the husband are equally responsible for the torture meted out to the informant.

In the facts and circumstances of the case considering the nature of relationship of these petitioners and there being no specific allegation against them as also in view of the materials on the record showing some sort of settlement between the parties also, let the petitioners above named in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from today in connection with Agrer P.S. Case No. 43 of 2019 arising out of Complaint Case No. 343 of 2019 be released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (fifteen thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate II, Sasaram, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. i.e.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2173 of 2020(2) dt.16-01-2020 3/3 (i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) avin/- U T