Jai Ram Sharma v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47186 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1585 Year-2018 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictGaya ====================================================== 1.
JAI RAM SHARMA Son of Late Ram Keshwar Sharma Resident of Village- Umtha, P.S.- Makdumpur, District- Jehanabad. 2.
Upendra Sharma Son of Jai Ram Sharma Resident of Village- Umtha, P.S.- Makdumpur, District- Jehanabad.
... ... Petitioners.
Versus
1.
THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.
Dinanath Singh Son of Late Lutan Singh Resident of - Dadpur, P.S.- Belaganj, District- Gaya.
... ... Opposite Parties.
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioners :
Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Senior Advocate.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate.
For the State :
Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 31-07-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.1585 of 2018 registered under Sections 323, 504, 379 and 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The accusation is that the opposite party no.2 Dinanath Singh approached the petitioner no.1 Jai Ram Sharma and his son Ajay Sharma for the settlement of the marriage of his daughter with Lav Sharma. On negotiation, demand of Rs.7,00,000/- was made for ornaments and expenses of Barat. Accordingly, the opposite party no.2 gave two cheques, one of Rs.2,50,000/- and another of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47186 of 2019(2) dt.31-07-2019 2/2 Rs.1,50,000/- but, later on, they did not pay any heed to fix the date of marriage of the daughter of the opposite party no.2. When the money was demanded by the opposite party no.2 from them, they abused and mishandled the opposite party no.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 is the father of Ajay Sharma, who is said to be taken the cheaques from the opposite party no.2 and deposited the same in the account of his company and the petitioner no.1 being the father of Ajay Sharma has falsely been made accused in this case. So far as the petitioner no.2 is concerned, he is none-else but the partner of the company of Ajay Sharma.
Having considered the facts and the circumstances of the case, let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender by them within six weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on their furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-XI, Gaya, in connection with Complaint Case No.1585 of 2018, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./- U T