IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.21343 of 2011 Amardeep Kumar, Son of Late Chandi Mandal, resident of Village-Mungaura, P.S.-Jamalpur, District-Munger. …………Petitioner. Versus The State of Bihar ………..Opposite Party. ----------- 2/- 06.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Surajgarha P.S. Case No. 06 of 2011 registered for the offence under Sections 498A, 379, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail. The prosecution case is that the informant was married to the petitioner on 25.7.2010 at Ashok Dham Mandir, Lakhisarai according to Hindu Rites and Rituals as they were in love affairs and after marriage the petitioner stayed with the informant at Kajara from 26.7.2010 to 03.09.2010 as husband and wife. It is further alleged that on 04.09.2010 Amardeep went to his house at Jamalpur and on instigation of his mother, brother and sister made a demand of Rs. 2,50,000/- as dowry. The further allegation is that since the informant declined to pay dowry on the pretext that her father was lodged in jail, she was abandoned. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage in question is itself disputed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was forcibly abducted and was married to the informant without giving knowledge to his family members. The petitioner had already lodged East Colony P.S. Case No. 23 of 2010 under Section 365/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the family members of the informant, in this regard. Submission is that in that case in course of investigation when the petitioner was recovered his statement was also recorded under Section 164 of Cr. P.C., which is Annexure-3 of the petition. The submission is that the matrimonial suit for declaring the marriage a nullity has also been filed on 7.10.2010. The present case has been registered on 9.1.2011 in order to put pressure upon the petitioner and his family members so that they may come to terms in the case lodged against the family members of the informant. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail. Taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions and after going through the F.I.R. and statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. lodged from the side of the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner deserves anticipatory bail. In that view of the 3 matter let the petitioner namely Amardeep Kumar in the event of his arrest at the hands of police or surrender before the Court below, be released on bail in connection with Surajgarha P.S. Case No. 6 of 2011 on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai. Sanjeet/- (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)