Shrawan Mahto v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.22042 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -890 Year- 2013 Thana -SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSAMASTIPUR ====================================================== Shrawan Mahto, S/o Brahamdeo Mahto, Resident of Village Bhattha, P.S. Rosera, District Samastipur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Rubi Devi, W/o Shrawan Mahto, Resident of Village Bhattha, P.S. Rosera, District Samastipur. At present D/o Kapleshwar Mahto, Resident of Village Shiyar Burj, P.S. Rosera, District Samastipur. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bijay Bhushan Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar-2(APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 13-07-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner is in custody since 30.1.2015 in a case registered under Sections 323 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Rubi Devi was married to the petitioner on 30.4.2008 as per Hindu rites and customs and after marriage, she went to her Sasural, whereafter 4-5 days, the accused persons, named in the complaint petition, began to demand a motorcycle and cash of Rs.50,000/- to which she made protest.Thereafter the accused persons began to torture, harass and assault her. Out of the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22042 of 2015 (2) dt.13-07-2015 2/2 wedlock, she gave birth to a daughter and ultimately on 20.8.2013, the complainant demanded medicine for her ailing daughter for which accused Nos. 1 to 5 caught hair of the complainant and assaulted her. Accused No.4 Ramakant Mahto poured kerosene oil on the body of the complainant and attempted to set fire on her body, but anyhow she got herself free and fled out of the house. It has further been alleged that in the morning, she went to her Maika and thereafter she filed the present case.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated by the complainant. On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the complainant. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera, District-Samastipur, in connection with T.R. No.915/15 arising out of C.R. No.890/13. (Sudhir Singh, J) PNM U T