Sanjeet Kumar Singh And ANR v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.6321 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -600 Year- 2012 Thana -BHOJPUR COMPLAINT CASE DistrictBHOJPUR ======================================================
1. Sanjeet Kumar Singh, son of Late Surajdeo Singh
2. Dasrath Singh, son of Late Ramekbal Singh Both Resident of villageGamhariya, P.S.- Karakat, District- Rohtas .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rama Nand Poddar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ashok Kr.Singh (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 18-02-2015 Heard both sides.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Complaint Case No. 600 (C) of 2012, corresponding to Trial No. 4589 of 2012, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 423 of the Indian Penal Code.
The complainant made allegation that the marriage of his daughter was settled with Petitioner No. 1 Sanjeet Kumar Singh and petitioner no. 2 is the uncle of petitioner no. 1 and he played the role of guardian and received money. It is further stated that the complainant deposited money in the account of Sanjeet Kumar Singh petitioner no. 1, but he refused to marry with the daughter of the complainant on the ground of non-fulfillment of
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6321 of 2015 (2) dt.18-02-2015 2/3 additional demand of dowry.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the true facts are that the daughter of the informant was in love with one Narendra Kumar and she had already solemnized marriage. The petitioner came to know about the facts and filed a petition before the S.P. Sasaram, Rohtas and also produced the entire call details showing the talks held between the daughter of the complainant and Narendra Kumar.
On perusal of records, it appears that the complainant has made only allegation against Dasrath Singh the petitioner no. 2 that he is the uncle of petitioner no. 1 and he played the role of guardian in settling the marriage of the daughter of the complainant with petitioner no. 1. No chit of paper is produced to show that petitioner no. 2 received any money from the complainant.
Considering the facts aforesaid the petitioner no. 2 Dasrath Singh, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6321 of 2015 (2) dt.18-02-2015 3/3 in connection with Complaint Case No. 600 (C) of 2012, corresponding to Trial No. 4589 of 2012, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. So far as the case of petitioner no. 1 Sanjeet Kumar Singh is concerned, there is very specific allegation against him that he being groom, received money in his account and the complainant deposited money in his account for about six months and later on he refused to marry with the daughter of the complainant. Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner no. 1 Sanjeet Kumar Singh on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) KKSINHA/- U T