Nathuni Mahto And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.717 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-667 Year-2017 Thana- SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Samastipur ======================================================

1. Nathuni Mahto son of Late Saryug Mahto, Resident of Village-Chhatneshwar, P.S.- Warisnagar, District -Samastipur

2. Mukesh Mahto @ Mukesh Kumar Mahto son of Nathuni Mahto, Resident of village- Chhatneshwar, P.S.-Warisnagar, District - Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Dinesh Mahto son of Late Laxmi Mahto, Resident of Village-Maniyarpur, P.S.- Warisnagar, District - Samastipur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Jitendra Narain Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sri Rana Randhir Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 21-01-2019 Heard both sides.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Complaint Case No.667 of 2017 registered under Sections 420, 406, 504, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The complainant alleged that the marriage of his daughter was settled with the petitioner no.2 but both the petitioners demanded additional dowry and on account of nonfulfillment of additional dowry, the negotiation was broken. The marriage was to be solemnized on 26.05.2017.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire allegation is false and concocted. The marriage of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.717 of 2019(2) dt.21-01-2019 2/2 daughter of complainant was solemnized on 15.05.2017 with one Rakesh Mahto. The daughter of complainant filed Complaint Case No.1795 of 2018 on 29.10.2018 against her husband. Some negotiation was going on for the purpose of marriage of petitioner no.2 with the daughter of complainant but the negotiation was not settled and the complainant lodged the case making false allegation of additional demand of dowry. Having considered the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegation against the petitioners, the above named, petitioners in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, are directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.

10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Samastipur in connection with Complaint Case No.667 of 2017, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Harish/- U