IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2386 of 2010 1. RAJENDRA PRASAD CHOUBEY @ RAJENDRA CHOUBEY, S/O LATE BHAGWAN CHOUBEY, R/O VILL.-NANDAN ,P.S.-DUMRAON,IN THE DISTRICT OF BUXAR PRESENTLY RESIDING AT THE NATIONAL LABRARY STAFF QUARTER ALIPORE,KOLKATA. 2. RAKESH KUMAR CHOUBEY, S/O RAJENDRA CHOUBEY, R/O VILL.-NANDAN, P.S.-DUMRAON, IN THE DISTRICT OF BUXAR PRESENTLY RESIDING AT THE NATIONAL LABRARY STAFF QUARTER ALIPORE, KOLKATA. --------- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. NANDJI PATHAK, S/o PRABHU PATHAK, R/o KESHOPUR, P.S. SEMARI, DIST. BUXAR. -------- OPP. PARTIES ----------- 4 18.5.2011 Having heard Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State as also counsel for the informant as also on perusal of the case diary and supervision note of S.D.P.O. Dumraon, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners made accused for offence under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 406 and 504 of Indian Penal Code, inasmuch as, it has come in the case diary even in the statement of the mother and the brother of the petitioners before the police that there was some sort of last minute difference of opinion in acceptance of Tilak and solemnization of Tilak and marriage after the 2 sister of informant was shown to the groom side at Deoghar and Chheka (engagement) was also performed at Deoghar. Mr. Singh would however submit that there is no proof of there being any such Chheka (engagement) ceremony taking place at Deoghar and to that extent, he has gone to submit that normally there is a photograph of such ceremony but, the informant has not been able to produce any such photograph before the police in course of investigation. He has further submitted that true it is that there was some initial move made by the two families for negotiating the matter but, then, the same did not materialize and for such an act, the petitioners cannot be held liable for the offence alleged against them. In the considered opinion of this Court, in a middle class society, normally no person is going to risk the career and life of an unmarried girl after failure of the negotiation at the initial stage. In the present case, when the mother of the petitioner herself is said to have herself admitted before the police in course of 3 investigation with regard to the Chheka (engagement ceremony) taking place at Deoghar and it is alleged by the informant that the petitioners despite receiving cash amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- by way of expenses for the marriage had refused to soleminise the marriage by making further demand of a motorcycle and such allegation have been substantiated in course of investigation by the police as recorded in paragraph no. 85 of the case diary as also in the supervision note of sub-divisional police officer, Dumraon dated 14.07.2009, it would be difficult for this Court to discard the same as being not an authentic statement and a creation of police specially when several independent villagers have also fully supported the prosecution case. It cannot be therefore said that it is out and out a false case created for just blackmailing the petitioners at the cost of the reputation and future marriage prospect unmarried sister of the informant. Taking all these aspects into consideration, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners 4 and this application is, accordingly, dismissed. If, however, the petitioners would surrender and seek regular bail, the present order of rejection of their anticipatory bail shall not prejudice their case and their such prayer for bail would be decided on its own merit. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)