Raghvendra Jha And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.48205 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -70 Year- 2018 Thana -TARIYANI CHOWK District- SHEOHAR ======================================================

1. Raghvendra Jha, Son of Late Satya Narayan Jha @ Late Hari Shankar Mishra @ Late Harsh Ankara Mishra,

2. Sabita Devi @ Sabita Jha, Wife of Raghvendra Jha,

3. Rajan Kumar @ Rajan Kumar Jha, Son of Raghvendra Jha,

4. Raushan Kumar Jha, Son of Raghvendra Jha, All are resident of VillageKushahar, Police Station- Tariyani, District- Sheohar. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 23-08-2018 Heard the parties.

Petitioners are apprehending their arrest in Tariyani P.S.Case No.70 of 2018 registered for the offences under Sections 406/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3⁄4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Allegation against the petitioners is that he has taken Rs.3,00,000/- for fixing the marriage of the daughter of the informant with the son of the petitioner and thereafter in the Chheka they had demanded Rs.2,00,000/- and on account of nonfulfillment of their demand the marriage broke out and the petitioners are not returning the money.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48205 of 2018 (2) dt.23-08-2018 2/3 that no money was taken by the petitioners and also the petitioners have not even seen the girl. As such. The petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case.

Heard learned A.P.P. also stating that there is allegation that the petitioners had taken Rs.3,00,000/- and demanded Rs.2,00,000/- and on account of non- fulfillment of their demand marriage was broken.

Having heard both sides and in view of the facts and circumstances, as stated above, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner No.1. His prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

So far petitioners no.2 to 4 are concerned, let the petitioners no.2 to 4, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Sheohar, in Tariyani P.S. Case No.70 of 2018 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C. and

(1) one of the bailors must be a local person having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the concerned court. (ii) the petitioners will not induce any witness or tamper with the evidence and the petitioners shall co-operate in the investigation

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48205 of 2018 (2) dt.23-08-2018 3/3 of the case and make themselves available as and when required by the police, otherwise, the prosecution is free to move for cancellation of their bail bonds.

With the aforesaid, this application is disposed of. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) AnilKrSinha/- U