Sanjay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17872 of 2018 (2) dt.10-04-2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.17872 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1 Year- 2018 Thana -MAHILA P.S. District- NALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF) ====================================================== Sanjay Kumar, son of Chhote Lal Paswan, resident of village-Chainpur, P.S.- Bihar, District-Nalanda .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Kishor Prasad For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Upendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 10-04-2018 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Mahila P.S. Case No.1 of 2018 registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The informant alleged that he settled marriage of his daughter, Sweta Kumari with the petitioner, Sanjay Kumar. Ring Ceremony was performed but thereafter the petitioner and his parents broke the negotiation on account of demand of additional dowry.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is bridegroom. He did not receive any farthing from the parents of bride. Engagement ceremony was held but thereafter on account of some unavoidable circumstances, negotiation was

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17872 of 2018 (2) dt.10-04-2018 broken. The father and mother of the petitioner are alleged to have demanded additional dowry but they have been granted anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this court. The petitioner is in service.

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel for the informant submits that the informant has got C.D. of the entire ceremony. The informant sold his lands to meet the demand and expenses of marriage of his daughter. The informant paid Rs.10 lacs and many other articles but the petitioner and his parents demanded more and more dowry and settled his marriage with the daughter of Jaipal Paswan after getting Rs.14 lacs as dowry.

Having considered the facts and nature of allegation made against the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner is bridegroom who after performance of engagement broke the engagement on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Saurabh/- U T