In a criminal miscellaneous petition, the Patna High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who faced charges of dowry harassment and torture, upon furnishing a surety bond within six weeks.
Release on anticipatory bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of like amount within six weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.49193 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -494 Year- 2017 Thana -KATIHAR COMPLAINT CASE DistrictKATIHAR
======================================================
SURESH KR. JEJANI @ NIKKU @ SURSH JEJANI, Son of Om Prakash Jejani, Resident of Mohalla- Durgapur, Neelima Rai Gali, P.S.- Town, District- Katihar.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
.... .... Opposite Parties
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jai Narain Thakur, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Singh, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER
2 13-10-2017 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
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49193 of 2017 (2) dt.13-10-2017
2/2
petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There 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. Katihar, in connection with Complaint Case No. 494(C) of 2017, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
U.K./U T
(Sudhir Singh, J)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner apprehending arrest in a dowry harassment case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Md. Naimul Haque Ansari @ Naimul Haque Ansari & Ors. Vs. The State of BiharReferred¶19
2006(3) PLJR 182
Suresh Kr. Jejani @ Nikku @ Sursh Jejani
The State of Bihar
Monika Kumari @ Mili Kumari
Sudhir Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
