IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.17461 of 2008 JAGANNATH THAKUR & ANR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 9. 5. 08. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also A.P.P. for the State. Petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Kamtaul P.S.Case No. 60/2005 registered under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It has been submitted that complainant had come to Kamtaul for negotiation of the marriage of his niece with the son of the two petitioners and after the date had been fixed, a demand was allegedly made by the petitioners for rupees three lakhs and 15 bhars of gold. Since the amount was not paid the marriage never took place. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to the impugned order dated 10.1.06 passed by the Sessions Judge, Darbhanga, that most of the witnesses had deposed to the fact that marriage could not take place since the proposed bridegroom refused to marry and they could not support the allegation of demand for dowry. It further appears that the investigation is still going on. Due regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the fact that investigation is still going on, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. - 2 - According this application stands rejected. M. Pal. (Abhijit Sinha, J.)