Allowed

Sunil Kumar Patel @ Sunil Patel v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC8 Dec 2017CR. MISC./57802/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order deals with the petition for anticipatory bail arising under Sections 498A IPC and 4 D.P. Act. The petitioner, fearing arrest due to dowry allegations, relied on previous precedents. The court granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on anticipatory bail within six weeks on furnishing bail bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties of like amount each.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.57802 of 2017

¶2

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1052 Year- 2016 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPATNA

¶3

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

¶4

Sunil Kumar Patel @ Sunil Patel S/o Late Bigu Rai Patel, R/o VillageFatehabad, P.S.- Paru, Distt.- Muzaffarpur.

¶5

.... .... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar.

¶8

Smt. Priyanka Kumari D/o Sri Raghunath Patel, W/o Sunil Kumar Patel @ Sunil Patel, R/o Mohalla- Jakariyapur, Near Krishna Niketan, Road No. 5, P.S.- Ramkrishn Nagar, District- Patna.

¶9

.... .... Opposite Parties

¶10

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

¶11

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jai Prakash Verma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Yogendra Kr. Singh(App)

¶12

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

¶13

2 08-12-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.

¶14

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case instituted under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and 4 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 has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The

¶17

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.57802 of 2017 (2) dt.08-12-2017

¶18

2/2

¶19

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 .

¶20

On behalf of the State and counsel for the O.P. No.2, 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 anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today in connection with Complaint Case No.1052 (C)/2016 on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Patna, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶22

(Sudhir Singh, J)

¶23

Amit/-

¶24

U T

Sunil Kumar Patel @ Sunil Patel v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar Patel @ Sunil Patel 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

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

Birbal Saw Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

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