IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.17693 of 2009 KAUSHALENDRA YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR -With- Cr.Misc. No.9991 of 2009 SIKANDAR YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 28.05.2009. Heard both sides. Since the two cases arise out of the same occurrence giving rise to Ghoshi (Okari) P.S. Case No. 280 of 2008, they have been heard together, and are being disposed of by this common order. The petitioner Sikandar Yadav is named in the First Information Report whereas the petitioner Kaushalendra Yadav is not named in the First Information Report. As per the allegation in the First Information Report, the sister of the informant was married to the brother of the petitioner Sikandar Yadav in the year 2002. The allegation is that on the date of occurrence she was done to death by strangulation. Counsel for the petitioners states that in the year 2002 itself, the brother of the petitioner Sikandar Yadav had lodged a case against the present informant and others alleging therein that his brother (husband of the deceased) was forcibly kidnapped by the accused persons for the purpose of marriage. It is stated that the said case has already been investigated and the matter is presently under trial. Referring to the Annexure-3, it has been submitted that Chandra Shekhar Prasad, one of the brothers of the petitioner Sikandar Yadav, - 2 - had again filed a criminal case being Ghoshi( Okari) P.S. Case No. 158 of 2008 against the present informant and other family members alleging therein that they forcibly tried to get his sister(deceased) entered into the house and when same was protested, some of them were assaulted. It is contended that the said matter is also under investigation. Referring to Annexure-4, it has been contended that the deceased had lodged a case against the husband and other family members under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code vide Case No. 161 of 2008, which was investigated and the police upon conclusion of investigation, found the case fully untrue, and as such, final form was submitted. Referring to the First Information Report, it has been contended that there is no allegation of torture and or demand of dowry. On the basis of these submissions based on the documents, it has been contended that the parties are on litigating terms since 2002. It is further contended that having regard to the aforesaid facts, two other brothers of the petitioner Sikandar Yadav have moved this Court for grant of anticipatory bail and they have been granted interim protection under order dated 22.5.2009 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 9933 of 2009. Counsel for the petitioners states that even if there is some truth in the First Information Report, the same may be probably directly against the husband of the deceased but not against the petitioner Sikandar Yadav who is brother of the husband of the deceased and Kaushalendra Yadav who is brother-in-law of the - 3 - deceased of the husband. It is further contended that the petitioner Sikandar Yadav is in jail custody since 28.11.2008 whereas the petitioner Kaushalendra Yadav is in jail custody since 2.2.2009. Counsel for the State after looking through the records including the impugned order is not in a position to controvert the aforesaid submissions. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and after going through the records, this Court is persuaded to admit the petitioners to bail. Let the petitioners Kaushalendra Yadav and Sikandar Yadav be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad in connection with Ghoshi( Okari) P.S. Case No.280 of 2008. U.K. (Kishore K. Mandal,J)