Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1838 (PAT)

Abha Devi @ Aabha Devi v. State Of Bihar

2007-11-29

V.N.SINHA

body2007
Judgment 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed supplementary affidavit, which is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners, State and the Informant. 3. Petitioners, who are the father, mother and the son, are apprehending their arrest in connection with a case registered for the offence u/s. 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Allegation against them is that having accepted the amount of Rs. Two lacs and odd from the informant for purchasing house and Rs. Six lacs and odd as marriage expenses, they have resiled from their promise to marry petitioner no. 3 with the daughter of the informant making out offence u/s. 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners controverts the allegation, with reference to the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners and states that the amount taken from the informant either for purchasing the house or marriage expenses has since been returned even before lodging of the instant case, which fact is being disputed by the counsel for the informant, who states that the part of the amount was returned after lodging of the First Information Report. 5. Without going into the correctness or otherwise of the two submissions, bare reading of the First Information Report makes out a case of cheating against the petitioners. In the circumstances, I have no option but to reject this application and direct the petitioners, Abha Devi @ Aabha Devi, Padma Shekhar Jha and Dharmvir Jha to surrender in the Court below and apply for regular bail as on three earlier occasions, this Court adjourned the matter at the request of the would be groom petitioner no. 3 for settlement of the dispute outside the Court, but the same was not settled between the parties. 6. If the petitioners surrender in the Court of C.J.M., Purnea in connection with K. Hat P.S. Case No. 74 of 2007 within four weeks from today, their prayer for bail should be considered in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by the fact that this Court has not chosen to admit them to the privilege of bail in the event of arrest.