Patna High Court
Dharmendra Sahni @ Dharmendra ... vs The State Of Bihar on 12 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 36614 of 2020
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-87 Year-2019 Thana- UJIYARPUR District- Samastipur
======================================================
Dharmendra Sahni @ Dharmendra Kumar Sahni, Male aged about 22 years,
Son of Ramvrish Sahni @ Ram Vriksh Sahni, Resident of Village - Lohagir
Malikana, PS - Ujiyarpur, District - Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suneil Kumar Thakur, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 12-08-2021
The matter has been heard via video conferencing.
2. Heard Mr. Suneil Kumar Thakur, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the
State.
3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with
Ujjiyarpur PS Case No. 87 of 2019 dated 12.05.2019, instituted
under Sections 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The allegation against the petitioner and others is of
abduction of the informant and physical abuse.
5. On 01.07.2021, the Court had recorded the following
submission of learned counsel for the petitioner:
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36614 of 2020 dt.12-08-2021
"5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that he is the neighbour of the husband
of the girl, as she was a married woman, and the
cousin of the petitioner, co-accused Shravan Kumar
Sahani, had developed relationship with her and
both of them had run away, but when the girl was
recovered, she was made to file the complaint case
and also get her statement recorded under Section
164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') against
all the accused, including the petitioner, just to
save the honour and dignity and marriage of the
girl. It was submitted that though the abduction is
said to have taken place in the intervening night of
20/21.01.2019, but the complaint case was filed
only on 23.02.2019 whereas in the complaint she
has stated that she returned on the very next day,
but still no police case was lodged
and even the complaint case has been lodged after
more than one month of the occurrence. Learned
counsel drew the attention of the Court to certain
photographs which have been brought on record as
Annexure-2 series in the present petition,
which indicates that there was close relationship
between the cousin brother of the petitioner and the
informant and that they had married also, but upon
return of the girl, this false case has
been instituted."
6. Thereafter, the following exercise was directed:
"8. Having considered the matter, let
learned APP get a report from the Superintendent of
Police, Samastipur as to whether photographs
which have been brought on record are genuine and
authentic. For such purpose, the petitioner or any
member of his family, shall, within ten days from
today, produce such photographs before the
Superintendent of Police, Samastipur. Upon the
same being done, the Superintendent of
Police, Samastipur shall get the same verified with
regard to their genuineness and authenticity from
the concerned expert. A report shall be submitted to
the Court latest by 7th August, 2021
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36614 of 2020 dt.12-08-2021
and the matter be listed on 12th August, 2021,
among the top five cases."
7. Today, learned APP submitted that the report of the
Superintendent of Police, Samastipur dated 06.08.2021, has been
forwarded to him and he has also filed it before the Court.
8. Perusal of the same discloses that the photographs,
showing the victim with his cousin, namely, Shravan Sahani
showing them to be married and there being very harmonious
relationship between them, upon forensic examination, have been
found to be genuine without any editing or morphing.
9. In the aforesaid background, the Court finds
substance in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner.
From the photographs, it appears that the informant is not under
any duress and is with a boy who is said to be the cousin of the
petitioner and there does not appear to be any indication of such
photographs having been taken under duress or coercion. Such
being the position, the Court finds that the allegations made in the
FIR indicate that the petitioner may not be involved in any wrong
doing. Thus, the Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the
petitioner.
10. Accordingly, in the event of arrest or surrender
before the Court below within six weeks from today, the petitioner
be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36614 of 2020 dt.12-08-2021
(twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each
to the satisfaction of the learned SDJM, Dalsingsarai, District-
Samastipur in Ujiyarpur PS Case No. 87 of 2019, subject to the
conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 and further, (i) that one of the bailors shall be a
close relative of the petitioner and (ii) that the petitioner shall co-
operate with the Court and police/prosecution. Failure to co-
operate shall lead to cancellation of his bail bonds.
11. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any
violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the petitioner, to
the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take immediate
action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner.
12. The petition stands disposed of in the
aforementioned terms.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)
P. Kumar
AFR/NAFR
U
T
