IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35031 of 2011 1. Mahadeo Mahto, S/o Late Dahaur Mahto. 2. Chandrika Mahto, S/o Late Buddhu Mahto. 3. Chandeshwar Bhagat, S/o Bijali Bhagat. Versus The State Of Bihar ----------- 2 19.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with a case in which cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there is no truth behind the allegation. The daughter of the complainant was already married to one Amit Mahto. The petitioners have nothing to do with Rajesh Kumar, S/o Batohi Mahto with whom it is alleged that there was a negotiation for marriage which ultimately failed due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry. Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are uncle of co-accused Rajesh Kumar whereas petitioner no.3 is a co-villager. It is submitted that even on admitted facts no offence under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the order be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) each with 2 two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sub- DivisionalJudicial Magistrate, (West) Muzaffarpur in connection with Complaint Case No. 1097 of 2011, Trial No. 2025 of 2011, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. Md. Ibrarul (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)