Ram Pratap Pandit @ Dr. Ram Pratap Pandit v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40683 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-565 Year-2019 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Banka ====================================================== 1.

RAM PRATAP PANDIT @ DR. RAM PRATAP PANDIT Son of Late Rohin Pandit Resident of Village- Pansalla, P.S.- Khodamanpur, DistrictBegusarai. 2.

Dr. Ram Kumar Pandit Son of Shri Ram Pratap Pandit Resident of VillagePansalla, P.S.- Khodamanpur, District- Begusarai. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Dr. Laxman Pandit S/o Late Surya Narayan Pandit Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 21-03-2022 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The prosecution case in brief is that the marriage of the daughter of the complainant was fixed to be solemnized on 15.02.2019 and for the same, the complainant gifted cash of Rs.5,00,000/- and other household articles but the marriage was not held and the petitioners refused to return Rs. 5,00,000/-. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. He

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40683 of 2021(2) dt.21-03-2022 2/2 further submits that when petitioner no.1 started insisting for returning the gifted articles, it appears that he filed the present false complaint case making false allegation that Rs.5,00,000/- was given to the accused when he had come to see his daughter but he admitted that the articles have been returned because the employee of the complainant has given in writing about receiving of all the articles.

Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioners, above named in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Banka in connection with Complaint Case No. 565 of 2019, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. (Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Brajesh Kumar/- U T