IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.29226 of 2009 RAMADHIN PRASAD, SON OF JHUMAN MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-TERARIYA, P.S.-CHANDRADEEP, DISTRICT-JAMUI. …..Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. SMT. SIYA DEVI, DAUGHTER OF BISESHWAR MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-MANGURER, P.S.-KADIRGANJ, DISTRICT-NAWADA. …..OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 11 25.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The offence alleged is under Sections 323,498A, 379, 504 of the I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. It is submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case at the behest of the persons inimical to the petitioner. Learned counsel for appearing for the opposite party no.2 submits that the allegations against the petitioner is of demand of dowry, torture as detailed in the complaint, and as such, petitioner is not entitled to be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner above named. Hence the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected. PN ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)