Vaishali v. The State of Bihar BIHAR
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
This application stands allowed
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438(2)
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. This application stands allowed. Gautam/- U T (Chandra Prakash Singh, J)
Judgment
ARUN SAHNI SON OF SURESH SAHNI VILLAGE- SIRSA RAMRAY MALLAH TOLA, P.S.- LALGANJ, DIST- VAISHALI
JALASI DEVI W/O SURESH SAHNI VILLAGE- SIRSA RAMRAY MALLAH TOLA, P.S.- LALGANJ, DIST- VAISHALI The State of Bihar BIHAR Versus ... ... Petitioner/s ... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the Opposite Party/s : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH Mr.Mritunjay Kumar, Adv. Mrs. Sharda Kumari, APP ORAL ORDER 2 23-05-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case in connection with Vaishali Complaint Case No. (C-1) 780/2022 dated 11.03.2022 registered for the offences punishable u/ss 304B, 201, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Later on, the cognizance has been taken u/ss 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioners and the co-accused persons are alleged to have committed murder of the Complainant’s daughter due to non-fulfillment of demand of Rs. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32983 of 2024(2) dt.23-05-2024 2,00,000/- as dowry. The dead body of the deceased was disappeared by the accused persons.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner no. 1 is the father-in-law, the petitioner no. 2 is the brother-in-law and the petitioner no. 3 is the mother-in-law of the deceased and they have no concern with the alleged offence. The petitioners neither demanded any dowry nor tortured the Complainant’s daughter. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners. The petitioners have no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition.
Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the bail petition of the petitioners.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the allegation being general and omnibus against the petitioners, let the above named petitioners, in the event of their arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned court concerned, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Vaishali Complaint Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32983 of 2024(2) dt.23-05-2024 Case No. 780 of 2022, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Operative part
This application stands allowed. Gautam/- U T (Chandra Prakash Singh, J)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: This application stands allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2).