Mohan Sahani And ORS. v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.12159 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -103 Year- 2014 Thana -BARAULI District- GOPALGANJ ======================================================
1. Mohan Sahani Son of Gharbharan Sahani,
2. Gharbharan Sahani, Son of Late Issam,
3. Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Sahani, Son of Mohan sahani, null
4. Suganti Devi @ Reeta Devi wife of Mohan Sahani,
5. Mantu Sahani @ Pintu Son of Mohan Sahani, All are resident of Sadauwa Ward No.1, P.S. Barauli, District - Gopalganj. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Chandrika Sahani, Son of Late Bhagrshan Sahani, Resident of Village - Kinuram, P.S. - Barauli, District - Gopalganj. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Srivastava For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jitendra Kr.Roy 1(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 24-03-2015 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420,406 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
It is alleged that the marriage of the grand daughter of the informant was fixed with petitioner no. 3 when cash of Rs.1,50,000 and other gifts were given to petitioner no. 1, the father of bridegroom. A ring worth Rs.7000/- was also given when further demand of money and motorcycle was made, the informant
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12159 of 2015 (2) dt.24-03-2015 2/2 refused to accede to the demand, as a result the marriage was not performed nor the money was returned.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no proof with regard to any payment to the petitioners' side and for the occurrence of 10.2.2014, the complaint was filed on 4.4.2014 which came to the registered as police case on 5.7.2014. The impugned order suggests that some of the witnesses supported the prosecution case while some of them have not supported.
Considering the aforesaid facts, let the above named petitioners be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of twelve weeks from today on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Gopalganj in connection with Barauli P.S. Case No. 103 of 2014 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) Anil/- U T