Patna High Court - Orders
Ramjee Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 3 August, 2017
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.25959 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -30 Year- 2009 Thana -BIKRAMGANJ District-
SASARAM (ROHTAS)
===============================================
Ramjee Singh Son of Late Ganesh Singh Resident of
Village/Mohalla - Rupipur, Police Station - Nokha, District -
Rothas.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party
===============================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sri Humayou Ahmad Khan, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Vindhyachal Singh, Advocate
===============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
5. 02-08-2017Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vindhyachal Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Humayou Ahmad Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
The petitioner, in the present case, is seeking regular bail in connection with Bikramganj P.S. Case No. 30 of 2009 under Section 498(A), 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bikramganj, Rohtas.
A perusal of the First Information Report would show that the informant is father of the victim Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25959 of 2017 (5) dt.03-08-2017 2 Sunaina Devi. It is alleged that the said Sunaina Devi was married with the present petitioner in the year 1983. There was a female child born from the wedlock but the petitioner was committing several act of cruelty right from beginning.
It is alleged that the victim lady was harassed as present petitioner has kept one Juli Kumari. The informant further alleged that his daughter was taken away after the Vidai from his village in the year 2009 but after sometime the petitioner went to his village and informed that his daughter Sunaina Devi had gone missing from Varanasi where she had gone with the present petitioner.
It is further alleged that the petitioner, his second wife namely, Manju Devi and one Navlakh Rai entered into conspiracy and after committing murder of his daughter her dead body was got disappeared.
In course of investigation, the victim lady Sunaina Devi came back/recovered, police submitted a charge-sheet under Section 498(A), 494 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the present Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25959 of 2017 (5) dt.03-08-2017 3 petitioner, his second wife and Navlakh Rai. Cognizance has been taken thereafter vide order dated 03.05.2013 and the case was fixed for appearance of the accused. The petitioner surrendered after refusal of anticipatory bail he moved before the court of learned Sessions Judge, Rohtas vide Bail Petition No. 703/2017, where his application was rejected by the impugned order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage is of the year 1983 and that there was also a female child, the life was going well without there being any earlier case lodged either by the victim or her father, however, because the victim lady went on missing in the year 2009 from Varanasi, present F.I.R. came to be lodged with allegations of torture and assault etc. which are only concocted and baseless.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a farmer and has got responsibility towards his wife including that of marriage of the young daughter and this being the position he should be granted regular bail.
On 15.06.2017, when this matter came Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25959 of 2017 (5) dt.03-08-2017 4 for Admission, learned counsel for the informant also entered into appearance and participated in course of argument. The facts are noted in the order dated 15.06.2017. It is a common submission that in the present circumstance the victim lady is only willing to stay with her father and brother at her Naihar and the petitioner will take her responsibility towards maintenance.
The learned counsel for the informant submits that because of security concern she is not willing to go there. The petitioner was granted provisional bail vide order dated 16.05.2017 for two months and thereafter he has approached the victim lady through her counsel and both were present yesterday in course of hearing.
The petitioner, in presence of the learned counsel for the parties, offers to make a fixed deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs only) in the joint name of the victim lady and her brother namely, Santosh Kumar in a nationalized bank at Bikramganj within a period of 1½ month from today. He further submits that the victim lady shall be getting an interest at least Rs. 2500/- per month Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25959 of 2017 (5) dt.03-08-2017 5 from such fixed deposit and, at the same time, the amount will also be a security for her future purposes. In presence of his learned counsel he has submitted that he has other responsibilities also towards his family and there is no other income save and except the agricultural income. Presently, this offer is being made, subject to the remedy which the victim lady may have for getting her maintenance, in accordance with law. This being the offer, learned counsel for the informant/victim lady in presence of Sri Santosh Kumar accepts the offer. However the learned counsel submits that the petitioner should undertake to take care of the victim lady in case of medical necessities. This submission of learned counsel for the informant is acceptable to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the State is present, however, in view of the developments, he has not offered any resistance.
In the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, considering that it is a marriage of the year 1983 and the petitioner being a farmer has come out with a bona fide offer to take care of the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25959 of 2017 (5) dt.03-08-2017 6 maintenance of his wife namely, Sunaina Devi, the provisional bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 15.06.2017 is hereby confirmed.
In view of this undertaking, the petitioner shall deposit the aforesaid amount within a period of 1½ month in the joint name, as stated above, in a nationalized bank at Bikramganj, Rohtas and shall handover the fixed deposit certificate to the victim lady who is his wife, as agreed between the parties, the parties shall appear for opening of the bank account positively on 15th September, 2017, when the petitioner shall come ready to do the needful. Any default or breach of promise on the part of the petitioner shall lead to cancellation of his bail bond. The privilege of bail is subject to the conditions under Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
With the above observation and direction, this application stands disposed of.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.) Rajeev/-
U T