Priyanka Sharma @ Priyanka Rashmi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 19501 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-39 Year-2023 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== 1.

Priyanka Sharma @ Priyanka Rashmi wife of Brajesh Kumar VillageSaguni Ps- Masaurhi Dist- Patna, A/p- Nehru Nagar Ps- Patliputra DistPatna 2.

Brajesh Kumar son of Late Satya Nand Sharma Village- Saguni PsMasaurhi Dist- Patna, A/p- Nehru Nagar Ps- Patliputra Dist- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Nilendu Kumar Choudhary, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nityanand, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 14-03-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Mahila P.S Case No. 39 of 2023 dated 18.08.2023 registered for the offence punishable u/s 406, 419, 420, 498(A) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant's marriage was fixed with the co-accused Ravi Ranjan, after that the co-accused Sahjanand demanded dowry by selling the land and threaten to break the marriage. Upon which the informant's father gave Rs. 15,00,000/- in cash amount and Rs. 3,50,000/- in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 19501 of 2024(2) dt.14-03-2024 2/3 the account of co-accused persons. They demanded further Rs. 12,00,000/- as a dowry. On the refusal of the same, they broke the marriage. The informant asked to return back the given money, but they have not returned it and threatened her.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that the Petitioner No. 1 is the sister of the accused Ravi Ranjan and the Petitioner No. 2 is the husband of the said. It is stated that the petitioners have not taken any amount from the informant, and as per the statement of Ravi Ranjan which was taken by the Investigating Officer it is clearly stated that the money which has been transferred in their account by them for the purpose of purchasing the raw material for construction of boundary wall of the informant. It is further submitted that the petitioner no. 1 has no concern with the family affairs of her maike and she is living separately at her matrimonial home with her husband (Petitioner No.2). The petitioners have no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioners, in the event of their

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 19501 of 2024(2) dt.14-03-2024 3/3 arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court concerned, Muzaffarpur in connection with Mahila P.S Case No. 39 of 2023, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

7. This application stands allowed.

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) jyoti/- U T