The High Court of Patna granted bail to the petitioner accused of dowry-related offenses under IPC Sections 498A, 420, and 406, directing him to furnish a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties.
Petitioner released on bail by furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the SDJM, Gaya.
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.52125 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -109 Year- 2014 Thana -GAYA COMPLAINT CASE District- GAYA
====================================================== 1. Ritu Ranjan S/o Janardan Prasad, R/o Aayushman Building beside Dr. Rai, near Kaveri Sweet Shop, A.P. Colony, P.S.- Rampur, District- Gaya. At present Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Sheikhpura Address Bank of Baroda, Baroda house, Dewan Shopping Centre, Jogeshwari West , P.S.Jogeshwari, West Mumbai.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
.... .... Opposite Parties
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Smt Renu Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER
2 09-11-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted under Sections 406, 420, 498(A), 109, 114 of the Indian Penal Code and ¾ of D.P. Act.
The allegation against the petitioner is of committing torture upon the victim due to non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 04.10.2017. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering of
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.52125 of 2017 (2) dt.09-11-2017
2/2
witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. The case is triable by the Magistrate. Due to petty family dispute, the present case has been instituted against the petitioner. The petitioner has further relied upon the judgment of this court, in the case of Md. Naimul Haque Ansari Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2006(3) PLJR 182 .
On behalf of the state, 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, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M., Gaya, in connection with Complaint Case No. 109 of 2014, Tr. No. 1734 of 2017.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
Amit/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner deserves bail in a case involving dowry detention allegations.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Md. Naimul Haque Ansari Vs. The State of BiharRelied on¶17
Md. Naimul Haque Ansari Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2006(3) PLJR 182
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ritu Ranjan
The State of Bihar
Mukta Sinha
Sudhir Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
