Allowed

Ranjit Kumar Sharma v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC5 Aug 2021CR. MISC./24495/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a dowry harassment case, conditioning it on the removal of documented defects within four weeks and the furnishing of bond after normalcy restoration. The court also directed potential mediation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to removal of defects within four weeks and furnishing bond after normalcy restoration; mediation and maintenance applications permitted.

Ranjit Kumar Sharma Vs The State of Bihar — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24495 of 2021

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-104 Year-2020 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Nalanda

¶3

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

¶4

RANJIT KUMAR SHARMA, (Male), aged about 30 years, Son of Suresh Prasad Sharma, Resident of Village - Karsilly, P.S.- Vishnupad, Distt.- Gaya.

¶5

... ... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Sonali Kumari, (Female), aged about 28 years, D/o Sujeet Kumar, Resident of Village - Asthawan, P.S.- Asthawan, Distt.- Nalanda.

¶9

... ... Opposite Parties

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the Informant : Mr. Sujit Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Vishal Saurabh, A.P.P. ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH

¶12

ORAL ORDER

¶13

2 05-08-2021 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove the defects, as pointed out by the office, within a period of four weeks from the date of restoration of normalcy.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.P.P. for the State through Virtual mode.

¶15

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 104 of 2020 for the offence registered under Sections 498(A), 341, 323, 504, 506/34 of the I.P.C. and ¾ of the D.P. Act.

¶16

The prosecution story, in brief, is that the accused persons including the petitioner tortured the victim due to non-

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24495 of 2021(2) dt.05-08-2021 2/3

¶18

fulfilment of demand of dowry.

¶19

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 case due to petty family dispute. The petitioner is the husband of the victim. The petitioner has also preferred a divorce application before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gaya. 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.

¶20

On behalf of the learned counsels for the State and the opposite party no. 2, it has been submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R/ complaint case.

¶21

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of twelve weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on his personal bond to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M., Nalanda at Biharsharif, in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 104 of 2020, subject to the conditions as laid down under

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24495 of 2021(2) dt.05-08-2021 3/3

¶23

Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶24

Once the normalcy is restored, the petitioner shall furnish bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) only with two sureties of the like amount each within a period of eight weeks to the satisfaction of the court concerned in connection with the aforesaid case.

¶25

If so advised, either of the parties will be at liberty to make an application before the court below for referring the matter to the District Mediation Centre for the purpose of reconciliation or one time settlement. In case, any such application is made by either of the parties, the court below shall refer the matter to the District Mediation Centre.

¶26

The opposite party no. 2 will be at liberty to make an application before the concerned Family Court for the purpose of maintenance, if so advised.

¶27

(Sudhir Singh, J)

¶28

U.K./- U T

Ranjit Kumar Sharma v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjit Kumar Sharma v. The State of Bihar

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

Anuj Prasad Vs the State of Bihar

Moni Singh @ Prabhakar Singh @ Dipak Vs the State of Bihar

Chote Singh Yadav @ Dibyanshu Kumar @ Chotak Vs the State of Bihar

Nandlal Prajapatti Vs The State of Bihar

Prakash Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Ranchhore @ Ravi Vs the State of Bihar