Allowed

Punit Sharma @ Punit Kumar v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC9 Nov 2017CR. MISC./54087/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application filed by accused şah PER in FIR under Section 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibitions Act. Petitioner claimed false implication and custody since June 2017; relied on Md. Naimul Haque. Court granted bail on furnishing bond.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M., Jamui.

Punit Sharma @ Punit Kumar Vs State Of Bihar and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.54087 of 2017

¶2

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -232 Year- 2012 Thana -COMPLAINT CASE District- JAMUI

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Punit Sharma @ Punit Kumar aged about 38 years, son of Suresh Prasad Sharma, Resident of S.B.I. colony, quarter no.2, Danapur, P.S. Danapur, Dist.-Patna

¶5

.... .... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Bihar

¶8

Saloni Kumri @ Shilpi Kumari, wife of Punit Sharma @ Punit Kumar, daughter of Devendra Singh, Resident of village Aghara, P.S. Jamui, Dist.- Jamui

¶9

.... .... Opposite Parties

¶10

====================================================== Appearance :

¶11

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Nand Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri S.M. Rahman

¶12

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶13

2 09-11-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶14

The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted under Sections 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and ¾ of D.P. Act.

¶15

The allegation against the petitioner is of committing torture upon the victim due to non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry.

¶16

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 20.06.2017. There is no allegation of tampering of 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

¶17

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.54087 of 2017 (2) dt.09-11-2017

¶18

2/2

¶19

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 .

¶20

On behalf of the state, it has been submitted that the petitioner is named in the Complaint Case.

¶21

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., Jamui, in connection with Complaint case No.232(C) of 2012.

¶22

(Sudhir Singh, J)

¶23

Amit/-

¶24

U T

Punit Sharma @ Punit Kumar v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punit Sharma @ Punit Kumar v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kameshwar Singh Vs The Chief Secretary, Government Of Bihar, Patna and Ors.

Chandeshwar Singh Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Rajdeo Prasad Verma and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Birbali Paswan and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Ritu Ranjan Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Umesh Chandra Shahi and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.