Hem Chandra Kumar Sahni @ Himanchal Kumar Sahni And ANR v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.47173 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -489 Year- 2015 Thana -MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE DistrictMUZAFFARPUR ======================================================
1. Hem Chandra Kumar Sahni @ Himanchal Kumar Sahni, Son of Sonelal Sahni.
2. Sona Lal Sahni, Son of Raja Ram Sahni, both Resident of villageMajhar Gothia, P.S. Pakridayal, District- East Champaran. .... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Ram Babu Sahni, Son of Bachhu Sahni, Resident of village- Kanta P.S. Gaighat, District- Muzaffarpur.
.... .... Opposite Parties.
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Arun Kumar For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. A.K. Thakur, For the Opposite Parties : Mr. D. Mehta, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 16-02-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 489 of 2015, registered under Section 418 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.
The allegation of complainant Rambabu Sahni is that negotiation regarding the marriage of his daughter Munni Kumari, with petitioner Hem Chandra Kumar Sahni was started with his father petitioner Sona lal Sahni in the month of November, 2014 and it was decided that on 20.02.2015, the family members of the petitioner will come to see the girl and other matters will decide regarding the marriage at that time. Accordingly, the girl was seen by the family members of the petitioner and it was decided that Rs. 3,00,000/- cash,
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.47173 of 2015 (3) dt.16-02-2016 2/2 motorcycle and ornaments will be given by the complainant and accordingly Rs. 1,00,000/- along with some ornaments were given to petitioner Sona Lal Sahni as gift on 20.02.2015 and date of marriage fixed on 28.02.2015, but on 28.02.2015 petitioner could not come to perform the marriage.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that, in fact, there was talk to perform the marriage of the daughter of the complainant with Hem Chandra Kumar Sahni, but after seeing the girl the family member of the petitioner refused to perform marriage and due to that reason, the present complaint case has been filed with ulterior motive to implicate the petitioner and his family members.
Considering the aforesaid submissions, let the above named petitioners be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four 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 the Learned Sri Amit Kumar Dixit, J.M. 1st Class, Muzaffarpur in connection with Complaint Case No. 489 of 2015 (Tr. No. 5206 of 2015), subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T