IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.46740 of 2008 SATISH CHANDRA GUPTA SON OF LATE BALDEO GUPTA RESIDENT OF MOHALLA SIPAHI TOLA,P.S.K.HAT,DISTRICT PURNEA Versus STATE OF BIHAR With Cr.Misc. No.46741 of 2008 SHASHI BHUSHAN GUPTA SON OF LATE BALDEO GUPTA RESIDENT OF MOHALLA SIPAHI TOLA,P.S.K.HAT,DISTRICT PURNEA Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2/ 4.2.2009 Since both the above applications arise out of one and the same complaint case, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The petitioners of both the applications apprehend their arrest in a complaint case which has been lodged for offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that the parties are having litigations from before. The present complaint has been filed in the year 2006. The complainant has alleged that she was being subjected to torture by her in-laws and additional demand of dowry was also made on different occasions. From annexure 2 it appears that on 1.7.2006, a police case was filed by the complainant against her husband Satish Chandra Gupta, who is one of the petitioners here, for offences under Sections 384,398(A) and 406 of the Indian Penal Code which resulted in K.Hat P.S.Case No. 253 of 2006. From annexure-3 it further appears that the police investigated into the matter and found the allegation to be false and thereafter final form was submitted on 19.8.2006. 2 Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the complainant was a widow lady and petitioner Satish Chandra Gupta had solemnized marriage with her and it is not possible or conscientious that a person, who has married with a widow, will raise further demand of dowry or show cruelty to his wife. The petitioner has transgressed the social stigma and was a progressive person. While opposing the prayer for bail of the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that petitioner Satish Chandra Gupta has married subsequently with another lady. An accused is to be convicted for offences committed and not for subsequent offences which he has committed. That apart, the allegation of offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code has not been made in the complaint petition. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, both applications are allowed and the petitioners of both the applications are directed to surrender before the court below within twenty days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and on their so surrendering, they shall 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 Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Purnea in Complaint Case No. 586 of 2006, subject to the conditions as laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Tahir/- ( Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) 3