Veerendra Prasad Singh @ Birendra Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58372 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-328 Year-2021 Thana- SONEPUR District- Saran ====================================================== 1.

Veerendra Prasad Singh @ Birendra Prasad Singh, aged about 65 years (Male), Son of Late Rajeshwari Singh, Resident of Village- Rai Patti, P.O. and P.S.- Dighawara, District- Saran.

2.

Umaravati Devi, aged about 58 years (Female), W/o Veerendra Prasad Singh @ Birendra Prasad Singh, Resident of Village- Rai Patti, P.O. and P.S.- Dighawara, District- Saran.

... ... Petitioners

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners :

Mr. Ankit Katriar, Advocate For the Opposite Party :

Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 21-12-2021 Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to remove the defects, as pointed out by the office, within a period of eight weeks.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Sonepur P.S. Case No. 328/2021 for the offence registered under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 of the I.P.C. and 3⁄4 of the D.P. Act. Later on, Sections 406 and 120(B) of the I.P.C.

2/4 were also added.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that the informant had settled the marriage of his sister with co-accused Mukesh Kumar Singh. The bride was shown twice and dates for Tilak and marriage were fixed as 26.04.2021 and 30.04.2021, respectively. Rs. 15,00,000/- was given as gift to the father of the groom and Rs. 3,00,000/- was expended in showing the bride. One day prior to the date of Tilak i.e., on 25.04.2021, the groom and his father Birendra Prasad Singh (petitioner no. 1) came at his house and demanded a four-wheeler vehicle before Tilak otherwise the marriage would not be solemnized. The father of the informant requested not to cancel the marriage but they did not listen to him and went away.

Then the informant and others went at the house of the accused persons who started hurling abuses and quarreling and became ready to assault and all the family members clearly stated that if Rs. 5,00,000/- cost of four wheeler vehicle is not given, the marriage will not be solemnized. On hearing this, the father of the informant went into great depression and due to which, he died on 12.05.2021. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have got no criminal antecedent.

3/4 against them. They have been made accused in the present case due to mistake of fact. As per allegation, due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry, the marriage of the informant's sister could not be solemnized with co-accused Mukesh Kumar Singh and due to which, his father went into great depression and died. The petitioner no. 1 would be the father-in-law and petitioner no. 2 would be the mother-in-law of the informant's sister. They are separate in mess and property from Mukesh Kumar Singh who would be the husband of the informant's sister. It is further submitted that negotiation with respect of marriage in between the petitioners' son and the informant's sister could not be succeeded. Hence, for the said reason, the present case has been instituted against the petitioners and their family members. On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioners above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of twelve weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M. Saran, in connection with Sonepur P.S.

4/4 Case No. 328 of 2021, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Sudhir Singh, J) U.K./- U T