Pintu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.63892 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1646 Year-2021 Thana- BHAGALPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== PINTU KUMAR son of Late Dilip Das Village- Rampur Ps- madhusudanpur Nathnagar Dist- bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Kaili Devi @ Veena Devi wife of of Muna Ravi Das Mohalla- City Lane Chamar Toil Ps- Nath Nagar Dist- Bhagalpur At Present MohallaBhikhanpur Gumti No-2, Harijan Tola Ps- Ishakchak Dist- Bhagalpur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Shashikant, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 16-10-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 147, 149, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. As per complaint case, marriage of daughter of the complainant was fixed with this petitioner by one Nutan Devi and ring ceremony was also performed on 28.07.2019 at the house of the complainant during which complainant had gifted Rs. 50,000/-, a ring worth Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 2 lacs cash for purchase of motorcycle. In May 2020, when complainant asked Nutan Devi to fix the date of the marriage, she refused to marry his nephew with the daughter of the complainant and replied
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63892 of 2023(2) dt.16-10-2023 2/2 that he has already solemnized marriage with another girl.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no such occurrence has ever taken place and this false and concocted case has been lodged only with a view of harass the petitioner. Moreover, complaint case has been lodged after delay of more than two months and there is no plausible explanation for the same. Petitioner is a Government employee and never demanded dowry from the complainant. Petitioner has got clean antecedent.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this anticipatory bail is allowed and it is ordered that let the above named petitioner in the event of his arrest/surrender before the court below within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhagalpur in connection with Complaint Case No. 1646 of 2021, subject to condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Navya/- U T