Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.19516 of 2012 ====================================================== Sanjay Kumar Soni S/O Sri Kameshwar Prasad Soni Resident Of Mohalla- Lakhibagh, P.S.- Masaurhi, District- Patna .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Tara Devi D/O Late Krishna Prasad Sonkar, W/O Sanjay Kumar Soni Resident Of Village- Barhi, P.S.- Barhi, District- Hazaribagh (Jharkhand) .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER 3 30-05-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. Petitioner seeks bail in Masaurhi P. S. Case No. 440 of 2011 registered for offence punishable under [STATUTE] . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case the process of the Court has been abused. He submits that marriage took place in the year 2004 and in the year 2007 father of the informant filed a case raising similar allegations with regard to demand of dowry etc. which has resulted in acquittal by judgment dated 4.3.2011. Learned counsel also submits that in the impugned order it is an error of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19516 of 2012 (3) dt.30-05-2012 2 / 2 2 record where it is mentioned that the petitioner violated the terms and conditions of compromise which had resulted in acquittal since the same is not true. It is submitted that the informant did not appear in that case and thus there cannot be any question of compromise and there was clean acquittal by the court concerned. Learned counsel submits that faced with the situation when the petitioner has been acquitted, the wife has now filed the present case in which the allegations are similar including that of demand of dowry. The petitioner is in custody since 23.2.2012. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that the police have found sufficient material in support of the allegations and thus the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and upon hearing learned counsels for the parties, the abovenamed petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-( Ten thousand ) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the S.D.J.M., Masaurhi, in connection with Masaurhi P. S. Case No. 440 of 2011. sudip/- (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 494

Statute Text:
Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. Marrying again during the life-time of a husband or wife. Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.