SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sonu Panjiyar @ Avinash Panjiyar vs The State Of Bihar on 1 April, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18718 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-60 Year-2017 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Darbhanga

Sonu Panjiyar @ Avinash Panjiyar, son of Chottu Panjiyar @ Anil Panjiyar
Resident of Mohalla – Shivaji Nagar, P.S.- Town, District – Darbhanga
… … Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Priya Gupta
Mr. Mohit Agrawal
Mr. Chandan Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER

2 01-04-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

The petitioner is languishing in custody since

18.02.2019 in connection with Darbhanga Mahila P.S. Case No.60

of 2017 arising out of Complaint Case No.910(C) of 2017

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 376,

377, 354 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section ¾ of Dowry

Prohibition Act, which came to be registered as Mahila P.S. Case

No.60 of 2017 under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.

The prosecution case is to the effect that the informant,

Bhanu Priti Bharti was married with the co-accused Manjit Ranjan

in July, 2014. After marriage, she spent a month in her Matrimonial

house at Madhubani and thereafter, she went to Delhi where she

stayed for three months. It is alleged that all the accused persons

were involved in prostitution and they used to put pressure on the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18718 of 2019(2) dt.01-04-2019
2/3

victim to engage herself in prostitution which was protested by her.

Thereafter, in October, 2014, the informant came back to

Madhubani where all co-accused persons made a demand of Rs. 20

lakh as dowry. It is further alleged that co-accused Sujit Ranjan,

Punita Devi, Gita Devi, Anita Devi and Ranjit Chaupal put pressure

on her to have sexual relation with co-accused Sujit Ranjan and the

petitioner, Sonu Panjiyar against which she made protest.

Thereafter, co-accused, Sujit Ranjan and the petitioner, Sonu

Panjiyar, entered into informant’s bed room and tried to ravish her

and when she made protest, co-accused Punita Devi, Gita Devi and

Anita Devi assisted in commission of the offence. It is further

alleged that ultimately, after receiving the dowry, the informant was

driven out of her matrimonial house by in-law family members.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that

the medical examination of the victim was not conducted, as she

refused to undergo medical examination. Even assuming

accusation to be true, no offence under Section 377 IPC is made out

against the petitioner. It is further submitted that contradictory

statements have been given by the informant under Sections 161

and 164 of the Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that co-accused Gita

Devi, Kailash Kharga, Sunit Ranjan and Ranjit Chaupal have been

granted anticipatory bail by learned Court below. It is further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18718 of 2019(2) dt.01-04-2019
3/3

submitted that the petitioner is not having any criminal antecedent,

statement to that effect has been made in paragraph no.3 of the bail

petition.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the

prayer for bail and submits that as per the FIR, attempted to ravish

the informant, and he is named in the FIR.

Considering the fact that no medical examination of the

informant has been conducted, the contradictory statements of the

informant recorded under Section 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C., co-

accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail, coupled with

the fact that the petitioner is not having any criminal antecedent, let

the above named petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail

bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like

amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Darbhanga in

connection with Darbhanga Mahila P.S. Case No.60 of 2017 arising

out of Complaint Case No.910(C) of 2017

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)
sanjeev/-

U T

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation