The Court is inclined to allow the prayer for pre-arrest bail as there is no direct evidence as to prove the offence by the petitioners: High court of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 47621 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 39 Year 2020 Thana MAHILA P.S. District Patna 1. Kiran Devi aged about 50 years Female Wife of Sri Anjani Kumar Singh Anjani Singh. 2. Anjani Kumar Singh @ Anjani Singh aged about 55 years Male Son of Late Ambika Singh Both resident of Mohalla Bhadani Nagar Chikor PO + PS Bhadani Nagar District Ramgarh State Jharkhand The State of Bihar ... Petitioner s ... Opposite Party s For the Petitioner s Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh Senior Advocate with Mr. Anand Kumar Advocate Mr. Md Arif APP For the State CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 04 09 2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing. 2. The case has been taken up out of turn on the basis of motion slip filed by learned counsel for the petitioners which was 3. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh learned senior counsel along with Mr. Anand Kumar learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Md. Arif learned Additional Public Prosecutor hereinafter referred to as the ‘APP’) for the State 4. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Mahila PS Case No. 320 dated 07.03.2020 instituted under Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47621 dt.04 09 2021 Sections 498A 504 34of the Indian Penal Code and 3 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 5. The allegation against the petitioners is that they had also at one point of time abused and demanded a four wheeler from the informant who is married to the nephew of the petitioner 6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the entire FIR the allegation is directed towards the father in law mother in law brother sister of the husband of the informant and only by way of a passing reference it has been stated that once on Holi the petitioners had also abused the informant and had demanded a four wheeler. Learned senior counsel submitted that this is a classic case of how all family members are falsely implicated and the law abused. It was submitted that there is not even a whisper with regard to any direct physical or overt act at any point of time except for one isolated incident that too highly innocuous which clearly has been made to exert undue pressure and implicate and harass the extended family of the husband of the informant. It was submitted that the petitioners live separately and have no connection in the affairs of the informant or her family members which would be clear from the fact that they live in a different town. Learned senior counsel Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47621 dt.04 09 2021 while summing up his argument submitted that the petitioners do not have any other criminal antecedent and further that even otherwise the petitioners could have any interest with regard to whether or not the father of the informant gave a four wheeler to her husband as they stood nothing to gain from it 7. Learned APP submitted that the petitioners are also said to have abused the informant and demanded a four wheeler 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties the Court finds that plain reading of the FIR indicates that somehow to make out an offence the name of the petitioners have been introduced for in the entire body there is not even a whisper with regard to any specific or direct act by them which does not inspire confidence. Thus the Court is inclined to allow the prayer for pre 9. Accordingly in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks from today the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25 000 twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Patna in Mahila PS Case No. 320 subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47621 dt.04 09 2021 Procedure 1973 and further that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioners andthat the petitioners shall co operate with the Court and police prosecution. Failure to co operate shall lead to cancellation of their bail bonds 10. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions by the petitioners to the notice of the Court concerned which shall take immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners 11. The petition stands disposed of in the (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J

Summary: The petitioner was taken into custody under Section 498A IPC, “Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty”, section 504, “Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace”, section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention” and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. This petition is in connection with Mahila PS Case No. 39 of 2020 dated 07.03.2020. In the high court of Judicature at Patna, this judgement was given by honourable Mr Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 4th  of September 2021 in the case of Kiran Devi and others versus the state of Bihar, criminal miscellaneous No. 4766 of 2021. Mr Rajesh Kumar represented as the advocate for the petitioner, and Mr Md Arif represented the state of Bihar as the additional Public Prosecutor, the proceedings of the court were held via video conference. The following are the facts of the case, the petitioners were accused that at one time they abused the informant and demanded a four-wheeler from the informant, the informant is the one married to the nephew of petitioner no.2. The counsel representing the petitioners held that according to the FIR allegations is directed towards the father-in-law and the mother-in-law and brother and sister of the husband of the informant and the petitioners have been accused of assaulting and demanding a four-wheeler once on holi. The counsel held that this is a scenario how all the members of the family have been dragged and falsely implicated. The counsel emphasized that there has been no account of physical abuse except one time which was an isolated incident, that too highly innocuous, which clearly has been made to exert undue pressure and implicate and harass the extended family of the husband of the informant, further the counsel stated that the petitioners live separately and have no connection regarding the affairs of the informant or her family members as they live in a different town. Also, the petitioners have no other criminal antecedent and further, the petitioners would not even gain anything if the father of the informant gave them a four-wheeler, therefore, the accusations are false. The additional public prosecutor held that the petitioners have been named in the FIR with regard to abusing and demanding a four-wheeler from their daughter-in-law who is also the informant. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the court held that the Court finds that plain reading of the FIR indicates that somehow to make out an offence, the name of the petitioners have been introduced, for, in the entire body, there is not even a whisper with regard to any specific or direct act by them, which does not inspire confidence. Thus, the Court is inclined to allow the prayer for prearrest bail. The court concluded that “the petitioners will be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Mahila PS Case No. 39 of 2020, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Procedure, 1973 and further, (i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioners and (ii) that the petitioners shall co-operate with the Court and police/prosecution. Failure to cooperate shall lead to the cancellation of their bail bonds. The petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.”