IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5873 of 2010 SANJIV KUMAR @ SANJU Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Bishwanath Singh, No.1,Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ram Priyasharan Singh, A.P.P. --------------- 3 11.5.2010 Heard the parties. In a criminal prosecution under section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and 3 / 4 of Dowry prohibition Act, the petitioner is said to be husband of the complainant, though this fact is denied on behalf of the petitioner. According to the complaint petition vide Annexure-1 complainant was married with one Rajiv Kumar in the year 1998 according to the Hindu rituals. Subsequently he was kidnapped by some other persons and is still traceless. The petitioner happens to be younger brother of aforesaid Rajiv Kumar, the legally married husband of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as a matter of fact marriage between the petitioner and the complainant was never solemnized in the eye of law. Even if the complainant and the petitioner were having live in relationship as wife and husband, in that case also in the eye of law they cannot be treated as legally wedded couple and, therefore, the offence under section 498 A of the Penal Code is not attracted in the present case. Be that as it may, in view of dispute regarding valid marriage between the petitioner and the complainant, in the event of his arrest or surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from today, the above named petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of - 2 - Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with complaint case No. C1-3764 of 2008/ Tr. No. 3175/2009, subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) Cr.P.C. ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J. ) M.Rahman