Manoj Sonar @ Bittu Soni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.17548 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -330 Year- 2016 Thana -JAGDIHSPUR District- BHOJPUR ====================================================== Manoj Sonar @ Bittu Soni, Son of Late Lalan Sonar, Resident of VillageDumrao, P.S. - Dumrao, District- Buxar. .... .... Petitioner.

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party.

====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr.

For the State : Mr.

For the Informant : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER ----------- 30-10-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State as also the learned counsel for the informant. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Jagdishpur P.S. Case No.330 of 2016 registered under Sections 498, 354(A), 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accusation is that the informant settled the marriage of her daughter with the petitioner Manoj Kumar alias Bittu Soni, son of Late Lalan Sonar, resident of village- Lalatoli, Dumrao, P.S. Dumrao, District-Buxar and, accordingly, Chheka was performed in which the informant gave gold ring worth Rs.8500/-, cash Rs.10,000/-, motorcycle and clothes to the petitioner. On the festival of Deepawali, due to blasting of crackers, the daughter of the informant sustained injury in her eye and she was treated. Later on, the petitioner used to

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17548 of 2017 (5) dt.30-10-2017 2/2 talk and move with the daughter of the informant but, thereafter, demand of Rs.5,00,000/- was made by the petitioner to perform the marriage with the daughter of the informant.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that, in fact, the marriage of the petitioner was settled with the daughter of the informant but due to sustaining injury in eye, the daughter of the informant lost her vision and the petitioner refused to perform the marriage with her. Moreover, the petitioner is ready to return the gifts and cash, which were provided to him, to the informant. Having considered the facts and the circumstances of the case, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender by him within six weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-XI, Ara, in connection with Jagdishpur P.S. Case No.330 of 2016, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./- U