Chintu Kumar And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.54950 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -129 Year- 2016 Thana -CHANDI District- NALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF) ======================================================

1. Chintu Kumar, son of Ram Nagina Singh,

2. Pintu Kumar @ Pintu Singh, son of Ram Nagina Singh,

3. Ram Nagina Singh son of Late Triveni Singh, All residents of village Bejapati, P.S. Telmar, District Nalanda.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Lovekush Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Anant Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 22-12-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Chandi P.S. Case No. 129 of 2016 registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The accusation is that informant, Manju Devi, negotiated for settlement of marriage of her daughter with Chintu Kumar, petitioner no. 1, son of petitioner no. 3 and accordingly, on 11.01.2016, she handed cash of Rs.1,12,000/- to the mother of the petitioner no. 1. Thereafter date of marriage was fixed on

22.04.2016. In the meantime, mother of petitioner no. 1 further demanded cash of Rs.1,50,000/- and one gold chain through Nitish Kumar, brother of informant. Thereafter, informant along with others went at the house of petitioner no. 1 and made request to arrange the marriage but the same was refused. The informant asked to return the cash of Rs.1,12,000/-, which was taken at the time of negotiation, but the family members of petitioner refused to return the same.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the informant negotiated to perform the marriage of her daughter with petitioner no. 1 and at that time Rs.11,000/- was given to the mother of petitioner no. 1 as Sagun but the family members of petitioner no. 1 after seeing the girl refused to perform the marriage and return Rs.11,000/- as given by the informant to the mother of petitioner no. 1. The said facts has come in the enquiry conducted by the Circle Inspector, Noor Sarai on the basis of petition submitted by the informant which would appear to Annexure 2, report dated 19.04.2016 of Circle Inspector, but the informant with ulterior motive has lodged this false case. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioner be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below

within a period of six 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 J.M. Ist Class, Hilsa (Nalanda) in connection with Chandi P.S. Case No. 129 of 2016, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- U T