IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.46757 of 2008 1.GOPAL KUMAR AGRAWAL @ DILIP KUMAR AGRAWAL SON OF SRI NARAYAN PRASAD AGRAWAL 2.AMIT KUMAR AGRAWAL SON OF GOPAL KUMAR AGRAWAL 3.ANAND KUMAR AGRAWAL SON OF SAJAN KUMAR AGRAWAL Versus STATE OF BIHAR With Cr.Misc. No.47184 of 2008 1.SAJJAN KUMAR AGRAWAL 2.SURESH KUMAR AGRAWAL BOTH SONS OF NARAYAN PRASAD AGRAWAL 3.SUMIT KUMAR AGRAWAL SON OF DILIP KR.AGRAWAL ALL RESIDENT OF MOHALLA PURANI BAZAR,TARAPUR,P.S.TARAPUR, DISTRICT MUNGER Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2/ 3.2.2009 Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to make necessary correction with regard to father’s name of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 of Cr.Misc.No. 47184 of 2008. Since both the above applications arise out of one and the same complaint case, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a complaint case which has been lodged by son-in-law of petitioner Gopal Kumar Agrawal alias Dilip Kumar Agrawal for offence under Section 380 and some bailable offices of the Indian Penal Code. Submission is that in Cr.Misc.No. 46757 of 2008, petitioner no.1 is father-in-law of the complainant, petitioner no. 2 is son and petitioner no.3 is nephew of petitioner no.1 and in Cr.Misc.No. 47184 of 2008 petitioner no.1 and 2 are bothers and petitioner no.3 is son of petitioner no.1 of Cr.Misc.No. 46757 of 2008. According to complainant, he was married with 2 Suneeta Devi, daughter of Goapl Kumar Agrawal alias Dilip Kumar Agrawal, petitioner no.1 of Cr.Misc.No. 46757 of 2008 in the year 2004 but she expressed her willingness not to live with the complainant on the ground that she was having affairs with a boy of Tarapur and she returned back to petitioners’ house after executing an agreement deed with the complainant. Allegation is that on 25.7.2006 the petitioners came to the house of the complainant and demanded Rs.1,00000/-( Rupees one lac) through demand draft in the name of S.N.Daruka at Bhagalpur as expenditure amount which incurred in marriage. Thereafter the complainant in compelling circumstances sent a demand draft of Rs.32,674/- issued from Bank of Baroda, Katihar in favour of said S.N.Daruka which was received by one of the petitioners namely, Sumit Kumar Agrawal. The extortion tendency continued and threat of false implication of a case of Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code was given. The accused persons again on 20.4.2007 came to the shop of the complainant and one of them namely, Sajjan Kumar Agrawal took Rs.4000/-. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the cognizance in the case filed by Sunita Devi (Sunita Chamaria) was taken before the witnesses examined in this complaint case. The case filed by Sunita Devi was registered for offences under Sections 498(A) and 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the complainant and his witnesses. The prayer for bail of the petitioners has been opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the 3 complainant by stating that the present complaint case was filed earlier to the case filed by Sunita Devi. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this application is allowed. The above named petitioners are directed to surrender before the court below within twenty days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and on their so surrendering, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in Complaint Case No. 948 of 2007 subject to the conditions as laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Tahir/- ( Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)