IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.19104 of 2009 ARUN KUMAR YADAV @ ARUN YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 10.7.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. A love if complainant’s version is accepted resulted into marriage. It is said that for the next time when she (complainant) came to her in-laws’ house she was not allowed to enter in the house as it was said on behalf of in-laws that she was belonging to Mehtar caste, would be allowed only if Rs. 50,000/- was paid. A query was made from learned counsel for the petitioner that how this contradictory statement is made in the allegation, in my view that was made to involve all the family members in a case under the provision of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, but that has not been accepted by learned Magistrate and submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that only to pressurise for marriage this allegation is levelled. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, in the event of arrest or surrender within one month from the date of - 2 - receipt/production of a copy of this order, the above named petitioner shall 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 Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Samastipur in Complaint Case No. 1355/2007/Tr.no.2820/08, subject to the condition as laid down under section 438(2) Cr.P.C. (Mandhata Singh,J.) AI