Ranjay Kumar And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15342 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-327 Year-2018 Thana- EAST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.

Ranjay Kumar, Son of Sri Bhabhikhan Sah 2.

Bhabhikhan Sah, Son of Late Nathuni Sah Both Resident of Village- Chailaha, P.S.- Banjariya, District- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Ramanand Sah, Son of Mahendra Sah, Resident of - Madhu- Chhapra, P.S.- Pipra Kothi, District- East Champaran.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vikas Kumar Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Mrinal Mohan, Adv.

For the Opposite Party No.1:

Dr.Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam For the Complainant : Mr. Mahendra Pratap, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 15-03-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the complainant and learned APP representing the State. Petitioners are seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No.C-327 of 2018 registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that while it is true that the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and the Bhagini of the complainant was fixed, but the said marriage could not take place because the petitioner while working in Central Industrial Security Force at Hyderabad would not get leave from his employer and was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15342 of 2019(2) dt.15-03-2019 2/2 looking for extension of the date of marriage which was not agreeable to the complainant and his family.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted yesterday that the petitioner no.1 is ready to marry with the Bhagini of the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant had sought time to seek instruction in this regard, but today it has been informed that she has already been married.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case wherein the petitioner no.1 is said to be a government servant and the Bhagini of the complainant has already got solemnized her marriage, in case of arrest or surrender of the petitioners within a period of four weeks from today, the abovenamed petitioners shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfication of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Motihari in connection with T.R. Case No.2220 of 2018, arising out of Complaint Case No.C-327 of 2018, subject to the condition prescribed under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) arvind/- U T