Tinku Kumar Singh @ Tinku @ Tinku Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27438 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-610 Year-2018 Thana- MADHAURAH District- Saran ====================================================== 1.
TINKU KUMAR SINGH @ TINKU @ TINKU KUMAR Son of Krishna Singh Resident of Village - Pojhi, P.S.- Marhowrah, Dist.- Saran 2.
Krishna Singh Son of Late Deenanath Singh Resident of Village - Pojhi, P.S.- Marhowrah, Dist.- Saran 3.
Usha Devi Wife of Krishna Singh Resident of Village - Pojhi, P.S.- Marhowrah, Dist.- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Harish Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Amitesh Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 26-04-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 363, 366A, 376 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act registered in connection with Marhowrah P.S. Case No. 610 of 2018.
3. It is submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated and the accusation in the complaint are highly unlikely in nature as the complainant herself lived with the petitioner no. 1 and voluntarily established physical relationship with him for a few months. As a matter of fact, marriage negotiations between the complainant and the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27438 of 2019(2) dt.26-04-2019 2/2 petitioner no. 1 were formalized in a chekha ceremony, but thereafter failed on account of demand of a motorcycle and Rs. 2,00,000/- cash by the petitioners. It is therefore, submitted that the complaint has been filed to put pressure upon the petitioners for marriage and in any event demand for dowry is general and omnibus in nature.
4. Having regard to the nature of accusations, gravity of offence alleged and considering that the petitioner no. 1 is said to have established physical relationship with the complainant claims to be minor, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Bail petition stands dismissed.
Chandran/- (Vikash Jain, J) U T