Allowed

Rohan Kumar @ Chintu @ Ravi Kant v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC10 Apr 2018CR. MISC./21314/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants anticipatory bail to the petitioner fearing arrest in a dowry case involving offences under Sections 323, 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner was released subject to bail bonds and conditions under CrPC Section 438(2).

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on obtaining bonds of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount, subject to conditions under CrPC Section 438(2).

Rohan Kumar @ Chintu @ Ravi Kant Vs State Of Bihar and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Miscellaneous No.21314 of 2018

¶3

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -619 Year- 2015 Thana -MUNGER COMPLAINT CASE DistrictMUNGER

¶4

====================================================== Rohan Kumar @ Chintu @ Ravi Kant, S/O Chandmaleshwar, R/V/Mohalla-Rampur Bhikhari, P.S. Kotwali, District-Munger.

¶5

.... .... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar.

¶8

Aarti Kumari @ Pinki, D/O Mahabir Prasad Gupta, R/V/MohallaSubhash Chowk, P.S. Kotwali (Basdevpur), District- Munger.

¶9

.... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Surendra Kumar, A.P.P.

¶10

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

¶11

2 10-04-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶12

A.P.P. for the State.

¶13

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case for the offence registered under Sections 323, 498(A) of the IPC and 4 of the D.P. Act.

¶14

The prosecution story, in brief, is that the accused persons including the petitioner tortured the victim due to nonfulfilment of demand of dowry.

¶15

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the 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

¶16

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21314 of 2018 (2) dt.10-04-2018

¶17

2/2

¶18

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.

¶19

On behalf of the learned counsel for the State, it has been submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R/ complaint case.

¶20

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. Munger, in connection with Complaint Case No. 619 C/2015, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶21

(Sudhir Singh, J)

¶22

U.K./U T

Rohan Kumar @ Chintu @ Ravi Kant v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohan Kumar @ Chintu @ Ravi Kant 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

Santosh Sharma Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Md. Khurshid Alam @ Md. Khurshid Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Sanjeev Kumar Rai Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Shyam Manohar Sharma @ Tuntun @ Shyam Manohar Vs The State Of Bihar

Prakash Ram Vs The State Of Bihar

Bablu Tanti Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.