Ajit Kumar Sah And ORS v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.24597 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1517 Year- 2017 Thana -VAISALI COMPLAINT CASE DistrictVAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ======================================================

1. Ajit Kumar Sah.

2. Bhonu

3. Mithilesh Sah, all are Son of Shiv Chandra Sah

4. Shiv Chandra Sah, Son of Late Bisuni Sah. All are Resident of VillageMadhopur Digharuwa, P.S. Bangara, District-Samastipur.

5. Rajeshwar Sah, Son of Late Rajendra Sah, Resident of VillageKheshrahi, P.S. Patepur, District-Vaishali. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Narsh Sah, Son of Late Sonu Sah Resident of Village-Patepur, Distt.- Vaishali.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Tapeshwar Sharma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 16-05-2018 The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1517 of 2017, registered for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Allegation as per complaint that marriage of petitioner no. 1 was fixed with the daughter of the complainant and in the ring ceremony complainant gave Rs. 3,11,000 and other articles worth Rs. 1,51,000/- and the date of marriage was fixed, thereafter, the petitioners started demanding an alto car and on non fulfillment of the demand, they refused to marry the daughter of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24597 of 2018 (3) dt.16-05-2018 2/3 complainant.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that out and out false and concocted case has been lodged and as a matter of fact for some reasons, petitioner no. 1 could not marry the daughter of complainant and marriage of petitioner no. 1 was fixed with some other girl and out of annoyance, the complainant has filed this present false case.

Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that they refused to marry the daughter of complainant and is not ready to return the amount and articles given during ring ceremony. Having heard both sides, in view of the above facts, let the petitioners above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 25,000 (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur, in connection with Complaint Case No. 1517 of 2017, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C, as well as subject to the following conditions, it is further subject to the condition that:-

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24597 of 2018 (3) dt.16-05-2018 3/3 (i) One of the bailors of the petitioners shall be a local person having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the concerned Court.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U T