Indrajeet Ram v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6788 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-56 Year-2022 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== 1.
Indrajeet Ram S/O Ram Jeewan Ram R/O Village- Lohargama, P.S- Sakra (Bariyarpur O.P), Ward No. 9, Distt.- Muzaffarpur. 2.
Lal Pari Devi W/O Ram Jeewan Ram R/O Village- Lohargama, P.S- Sakra (Bariyarpur O.P), Ward No. 9, Distt.- Muzaffarpur. 3.
Ram Jeewan Ram S/O Dona Ram R/O Village- Lohargama, P.S- Sakra (Bariyarpur O.P), Ward No. 9, Distt.- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Alok Kumar Alok, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Murli Dhar, A.P.P.
For the Informant :
Mr. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Kr. Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 30-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, informant and the State.
2. Petitioners apprehend arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 406, 419, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, marriage of daughter of the informant was fixed on 23.06.2022 and on 02.04.2021 the ritauls of Chheka and Faldan were done at the house of the petitioners and during that, some cash and ornaments were given by the informant to the petitioners as gift. Thereafter, it is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6788 of 2024(3) dt.30-04-2024 2/3 alleged that all the accused persons started demanding Apache Motorcycle as dowry and then refused to marry with the daughter of the informant and got petitioner No. 1 married with another girl.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that admittedly, the ritaul of Faldan was convened and in that ceremony, a sum of Rs. 2,100/- cash, clothes, fruits and sweets were given by the informant and thereafter, due to the pandemic and lockdown, marriage could not be performed for two years. He further submits that after the lockdown when petitioner No. 3 repeatedly persuaded the informant for marriage, he showed his poor economical condition and got the marriage delayed. Thereafter, due to social pressure and age of petitioner No. 1, petitioner No. 3 got the marriage of petitioner No. 1 solemnized with another girl. Lastly, he submits that demand of dowry is purely ornamental in nature, merely to make the case grave. Petitioners claim clean antecedent.
5. Learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the bail application.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this anticipatory bail is allowed and it is ordered that let the above named petitioners in the event of their
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6788 of 2024(3) dt.30-04-2024 3/3 arrest/surrender before the court below within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur in connection with Mahila P. S. Case No. 56 of 2022, subject to condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Navya/- U T