Uma Shankar Singh And ORS v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.3165 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -492 Year- 2015 Thana -ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSASARAM (ROHTAS) ======================================================
1. Uma Shankar Singh, Son of late Brij Mohan Singh
2. Dhruvjee @ Dhrujee Singh, Son of Uma Shankar Singh
3. Chhotu Singh, Son of Uma Shankar Singh All Resident of Village: Kusurhi, P.S.- Darigaon (Sasaram), DistrictRohtas, At Present Fazalganj, Ward No. 8, Sasaram, P.S.- Sasaram (Model), District: Rohtas.
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Kamleshwar Prasad Singh @ Kamlesh Singh, Son of late Chandradeep Singh, Resident of Village: Dhangai , Ward No. 7, P.O.- Dhangai, Police Station: Bikramganj, District- Rohtas.
.... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Lakshmi Kant Sharma (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 02-02-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Complaint Case No. 492 of 2015 instituted for the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is alleged in the complaint petition that complainant negotiated for marriage of his daughter with accused no.2 and date of marriage was also fixed in December, 2015 but, later on, the accused persons refused to perform the marriage of the daughter of the complainant on the pretext of making demand
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3165 of 2017 (2) dt.02-02-2017 2/2 of car in dowry.
In this manner, from the complaint petition, itself it appears that there is general and omnibus allegation that the marriage was settled. There is no any supportive document to show that any date of marriage was fixed. In the circumstances, prayer of the petitioners for anticipatory bail is allowed. In the event of surrender/arrest of the petitioners, named above, within six weeks from today in connection with Complaint Case No. 492 of 2015, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bikramganj, Rohtas, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
(Sanjay Priya, J.) ravi/- U T