Manoj Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14707 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-587 Year-2018 Thana- VAISALI COMPLAINT CASE DistrictVaishali ====================================================== MANOJ MAHTO Son of Late Dawarik Mahto, Resident of village - Shyampur, Police Station - Bhagwanpur, District - Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Punam Devi @ Kumari Punam Wife of Manoj Mahto, Resident of village - Shyampur, P.O. Hansi Kewal, Police Station - Bhagwanpur, District - Vaishali. At present C/O Rambrish Mahto, resident of Village- Dhanusi, P.O. Ghataro, Police Station - Kartaha, District - Vaishali. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dharmesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Subodh Kumar Mr. Nitesh Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 20-12-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Complaint Case No.587 of 2018 registered under Sections 498(A) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. On perusal of Annexure 1 to 7, it would appear that the complainant filed a complaint case against the petitioner and others. Thereafter the petitioner filed a complaint case against opposite party no.2 making allegation that she is living with Prahlad Mahto. In this

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14707 of 2021(2) dt.20-12-2021 2/2 regard, a certificate was issued by Mukhiya and Sarpanch. The court below granted bail to the petitioner after reconciliation between the husband and the wife. Thereafter, opposite party no.2 refused to accompany the petitioner. In this regard, the petitioner informed the court below. In pursuance of direction, the petitioner appeared before the Mediator but opposite party no.2 remained absent for several dates. Therefore, the petitioner deserves anticipatory bail.

Having considered the above facts and circumstances of the case as well as Annexure 1 to 7, the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing personal bond to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Complaint Case No.587 of 2018, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Harish/- (Arvind Srivastava, J) U T