Petitioner sought anticipatory bail allegedly implicated in dowry death torture charges. Court allowed bail on surrender within six weeks subject to sureties.
Bail on surrender within six weeks with bond of Rs. 20,000 and two sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51744 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-896 Year-2022 Thana- LAKHISARAI District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
VIVEK RAJ @ RANJEET KUMAR son of Uma Saw Mohalla- Patel Nagar ward no-17, Ps- Kabaiya Dist- lakhisarai P/A- Mahatma Gandhi Road Ward no-27, Naya Bazar Lakhisarai Ps- Kabaiya Lakhisarai Dist- lakhisarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rabi Bhushan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH
ORAL ORDER
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Lakhisarai (Kabaiya) P.S Case No. 896 of 2022 dated 08.11.2022 registered for the offence punishable u/s 498(A), 341, 323,506,34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. As per the prosecution case, the informant has alleged that the petitioner and other named accused persons subjected to torture her and her children physically and mentally on account of non-fulfillment of demand of one lakh of dowry.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51744 of 2023(4) dt.11-12-2023 2/3
It is further alleged that the informant’s mother-in-law and her two nanads strangulated her with intent to kill her but she was rescued and the petitioner and the informant’s in-laws assaulted her. The informant was also threatened to leave the matrimonial house with her children otherwise she would be killed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner is the husband of the informant. The petitioner neither demanded any dowry nor tortured the informant. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner. 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." Learned counsel has further submitted that Section 498A of the IPC is triable by the Magistrate. Learned counsel has further relied on the judgments in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (2022) 10 SCR 351 and Md. Asfak Alam Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr passed in Criminal Appeal No(s). 2207 of 2023 arising out of Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No. 3433 of 2023 . The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51744 of 2023(4) dt.11-12-2023 3/3
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioner, in the event of his arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai in connection with Lakhisarai (Kabaiya) P.S Case No. 896 of 2022, subject to conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
8. The application stands allowed.
(Chandra Prakash Singh, J)
Sudha/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with FIR No.896 of 2022.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Md. Naimul Haque Ansari @ Naimul Haque Ansari & Ors. Vs. The State of BiharReferred¶18
Md. Naimul Haque Ansari @ Naimul Haque Ansari & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2006(3) PLJR 182
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and AnotherReferred¶18
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (2022) 10 SCR 351 · Who else cites this
Md. Asfak Alam Vs. The State of Jharkhand & AnrReferred¶18
Md. Asfak Alam Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr passed in Criminal Appeal No(s). 2207 of 2023 arising out of Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No. 3433 of 2023
VIVEK RAJ @ RANJEET KUMAR
The State of Bihar
GITA KUMARI @ SITA DEVI
CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
