IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33635 of 2008 MD.ISMILE @ MD.ISMAIL Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 3.9.2008 Heard. Some of the facts are necessary to be noticed that the complaint petition was filed for offence under sections 364, 366A and 120B of the Penal Code and sections ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. On a copy being received at the police station, the police did not register the case under sections 498A and 120B of the Penal Code and went on inserting new section 376 of the Penal Code and ultimately ended up in submitting chargesheet only under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The contention, which appears arising out of the complaint petition, is on the age of the girl that she could not be aged about 13 years. Further contention is that the son of the petitioner who was being married to the complainant was too little a boy of being marriageable age and as such the entire allegation got demolished. It is also contended that there is no specific allegation about the demand of dowry either in cash or land and that the petitioner being an old man and also being the father of the boy is in custody since 26.2.2008. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the argument, let petitioner named above be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.3,000/-(Three thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief - 2 - Judicial Magistrate, Araria, in connection with Jokihat P.S. case no.154 of 2007. sudip ( Dharnidhar Jha,J )