Sumit Kumar @ Kaushalendra Kumar @ Bigan Singh And ANR v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.80156 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-157 Year-2018 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Patna ======================================================
1. Sumit Kumar @ Kaushalendra Kumar @ Bigan Singh, Son of Shiv Prasad.
2. Surendra Kumar Son of Shiv Prasad Both Resident of Village- Puranchak, P.S.- Masaurhi, Dist.- Patna, at present New Alkapuri, P.S.- Gardanibag, Dist.- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Kulanand Jha For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Sri Mritunjay Kumar Nirala ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 16-01-2019 Heard both sides.
Petitioners apprehend their arrest in Mahila P.S. Case No.157 of 2018 registered under Sections 354(D), 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The gist of the allegation is that the informant alleged that her marriage was fixed with one Sunil Kumar and ring ceremony was held on 22.06.2018 in Human temple situated near railway station, Patna. Thereafter she alleged that Sunil Kumar took her to different places and also talked with her as husband and wife. But when her father and maternal uncle went to the house of Sunil Kumar on 24.08.2018, the father, mother, brothers and other relations of Sunil Kumar demanded
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.80156 of 2018(2) dt.16-01-2019 2/3 additional dowry and threatened to break the negotiation if the additional demand is not made.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the informant did not make any allegation against the petitioners. Petitioners happened to be the brother of the bridegroom and they did not put forth any additional demand. The negotiation was finalized between the fathers of the bridegroom and bride but some differences surfaced in the negotiation between the fathers of the bride and bridegroom and for that the bride lodged this case implicating the entire family members. Learned counsel for the informant submits that the petitioners also demanded additional dowry and threatened to break the negotiation.
Having considered the facts that the petitioners are brothers of the bridegroom and the informant did not alleged any act on the part of the petitioners to take part in the negotiation for settlement of marriage against the petitioners, let petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.80156 of 2018(2) dt.16-01-2019 3/3 learned CJM, Patna in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No.157 of 2018, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) S.KUMAR/- U T