Allowed

Birbal Saw v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC8 Dec 2017CR. MISC./57588/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Honble Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a complaint case involving allegations under Sections 323, 420, 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. Bail was allowed subject to conditions on furnishing bonds within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000 with two sureties of like amount within six weeks. Conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC to be complied with.

Birbal Saw Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.57588 of 2017

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1069 Year-2016 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna

¶3

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

¶4

Birbal Saw Son of Jamun Saw Resident of Village - Kabutarkhopi, P.S. - Bairiya, District - Sahebganj.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar.

¶7

Shatrughan Sao Son of Nepali Sao

¶8

Rani Kumari D/o Shatrughan Sao Both residents of village - Shahpur Turha Toli, P.S. Shahpur, District - Patna.

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satish Chandra, Advocate For the State : Mr. TAPESHWAR SHARMA, APP ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶12

2 08-12-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

¶13

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered under Sections 323, 420, 498A of the Indian Penal Code and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, but cognizance has been taken under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶14

Allegation against the petitioner is of committing torture upon the victim due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry.

¶15

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The

¶16

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.57588 of 2017(2) dt.08-12-2017 2/2

¶17

petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case due to petty family dispute. The case is triable by the Magistrate. The petitioner has 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.

¶18

On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is named in the complaint case.

¶19

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest/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 learned S.D.J.M., Danapur in connection with Complaint case No.1069C of 2016, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶20

(Sudhir Singh, J)

¶21

Narendra/-

¶22

U T

Birbal Saw v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Birbal Saw v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

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

Renuka Kumari Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Baldev Pd. Vimal and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Dr.Kiran Saksena Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Ataullah Vs The State Of Bihar

Pramod Rai @ Pramid Rai Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Md. Afzal Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.