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