IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.9697 of 2008 PRAMOD NARAYAN SHARMA & ANR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5. 4.9.2008 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners apprehends their arrest in connection with Tr. No.1097/07 arising out of Complaint Case No.300/2004 for the alleged offences registered under sections 406 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is submitted that in this case the complainant-father of the girl has filed the present complaint on 16th of February, 2004 alleging basically the criminal breach of trust and demand of dowry. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner no.1 is the father-in-law aged about 70 years and petitioner no.2 is the mother-in-law aged about 65 years. It is further submitted that primarily the grievance of the daughter of the complainant is to the effect that she was married with Rajiv Sharma, son of the petitioners, on 10th of May, 2001 and after the marriage the husband and the wife both started 2 residing in England and it is alleged that in England the daughter of the complainant found that her husband is virtually not engaged in any worth avocation to the contrary he is wasting his time by drinking liquor and abusing the daughter of the complainant. It is further submitted that the daughter of the complainant was also working in England in some of the Call Centre. It has further been submitted that the daughter of the complainant got annoyed with the indecent behaviour of her husband as could be evident from her informatory petition given to the Police Station at Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi after coming from England, as contained in Annexure 5. Later developments between the husband and the wife resulted in filing of the divorce petition by the husband in England, on which final decree of divorce was passed on 19.12.2003, vide Annexure 6. The same was confirmed as no appeal was preferred against the decree. The learned counsel submits that from perusal of Annexure 5, it would appear that besides alleging the misbehaviour on the part of her husband under the influence of liquor, she has no other grievances like demand of dowry and making torture for bringing the 3 dowry. However, she apprehended that her parents may force her to go back to the place of her husband and, as such, she informed the police in her letter, as contained in Annexure 5, to the effect that her parents and in-laws may make any complaint against her or her friends, but the same may not be entertained as she claims herself to be major and she has further expressed therein that she has decided to stay in India and sustain herself independently. She further stated therein that my family members and relatives are pressurizing me on phone also. In the above circumstances, the learned counsel submits that filing of this complaint is an afterthought of the father of the girl and making the allegation of demand is basically general in nature. It has further been submitted that although the petitioners had earlier moved this Court for quashing of the said complaint case, but the same was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 1st of February, 2007 passed in Cr.Misc.No.39943 of 2004 (Annexure L to the counter affidavit filed by the complainant). The appeal preferred against the same before the Apex Court was dismissed vide order dated 4 11.5.2007 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No.2523/2007 (Annexure M to the counter affidavit filed by the complainant). As such, the complaint filed against the accused made in the complaint, including these petitioners are pending. It has further been submitted that the petitioners are the old persons and law abiding citizens and have always co-operated and further they undertake to co-operate in the complaint case. Accordingly, prayer has been made for grant of anticipatory bail to them. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, on the other hand, submits that although the daughter of the complainant has not stated about the demand of dowry or torture for bring the dowry, but she was subjected to misbehaviour of the co-accused Rajiv Sharma as he was not doing substantial work for earning. Not only this at the time of marriage in 2001, it was given to understand to the complainant that he is a Computer Engineer. However, the complainant found that he was not so. Since the complainant was having the bona fide belief that the son of the petitioners is a Computer Engineer, he got the marriage of her daughter solemnized. Learned counsel further 5 submits that pursuant to the order of this Court dated 7.5.2008, he filed his income tax return showing disclosure to the Income Tax Department. However, no further details with regard to the amount spent by the complainant for meeting the alleged dowry demand of the petitioners has been disclosed. Learned counsel further submits that in the complaint the witnesses have been examined, including the daughter of the complainant, and they have supported the allegations made in the complaint. It is further submitted that the submissions, which have been advanced on behalf of the petitioners in this application, were also considered by this Court in the application filed by the petitioners for quashing the complaint case, which was dismissed, as noticed above. Considering the submissions of the parties and the materials brought on the record, as noticed above, as well as the allegations made in the complaint, as also the old age of the petitioners, it is directed that petitioner no.1 Pramod Narayan Sharma and petitioner no.2 Rani Brinda Sharma @ Smt. Brinda Sharma, in the event of their arrest or 6 surrender in connection with Trial no.1097/07 arising out of Complaint Case No.300/2004 within a period of ten weeks from today, as it has been submitted that the petitioners are presently in England, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, East Muzaffarpur, subject to the conditions as mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)