IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.37750 of 2008 Ram Ishwar Sahani @ Rameshwar Sahani, son of late Bhola Sahani, resident of villge-Kudhani Tola, P.S.-Kudhani, District- Muzaffarpur, presently resident of Mohalla- Nayabazar, District- Gorakha, Nepal. . . . Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR WITH Cr. Misc. No.48055 of 2008 Chandu Sahani, son of late Bhola Sahani, resident of village- Kudhani Tola, P.S.- Kudhani, District-Muzaffarpur. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3/ 31.03.2009 Since both the applications have arisen out of one and the same police case, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by the common order. The petitioners seek bail in a case which has been registered for the offences under Section304 B, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Informant’s daughter was married with petitioner Chandu Sahani. Allegation is that after marriage, she became victim of dowry seeking by her in-laws and due to her inability of desired dowry article deserted her elimination by her in-laws including the petitioners. Submission on behalf of the petitioner Chandu Sahni is that his case is similar to the case of others. He was liking his wife and there was no question of committing any torture and petitioner has surrendered on his own will. Submission on behalf of petitioner Ram Ishwar Sahani @ Rameshwar Sahani is that the case of petitioner is on different footing because he happens to be a man of other village and other locality and - 2 - his case cannot be compared with the other petitioner. Considering this fact petitioner, Ram Ishwar Sahani @ Rameshwar Sahani ( in Cr. Misc.No. 37750 of 2008) 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur in connection with Kurhani P.S. Case No. 233 of 2007. So far as the petitioner Chandu Sahani is concerned he is husband of deceased and his role cannot be equated with any other accused in a case under Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code. Considering this fact, I am not inclined to grant bail to petitioner Chandu Sahani (in Cr. Misc. No. 48055 of 2008). Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected. Uday/ (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)