Madhu Narayan Mehta @ Madhu Narain Mehta And ORS. v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.30939 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1012 Year- 2013 Thana -COMPLAINT CASE District- SUPAUL ======================================================
1. Madhu Narayan Mehta @ Madhu Narain Mehta Son of Late Bihari Mehta
2. Pramod Mehta Son of Madhu Narayan Mehta
3. Sita Devi Wife of Madhu Narayan Mehta
4. Manju Devi Widow of Late Prabhu Mehta
5. Amrita Devi @ America devi @ Animika Devi Wife of Pramod Mehta All (1 to 5) are resident of village- Gareriya, P.S.- Balua Bazar, DistrictSupaul.
6. Ramanand Mehta Son of Vishwanath Mehta
7. Vishwanath Mehta @ Bishwanath Mehta Son of Late Bihari Mehta Both (6 to 7) resident of village- Baysi, P.S.- Karjain, District- Supaul.
8. Vijay Mehta Son of Late Sukhdeo Mehta resident of village- Belhi, P.S.- Pratapganj, District- Supaul.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Meena Devi Wife of Ashok Mehta resident of village- Gareriya, P.S.- Balua Bazar, District- Supaul.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Renuka Ratnakar(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 28-01-2015 Heard the parties.
In this application for anticipatory bail the petitioners apprehend their arrest for the offence punishable under sections 341, 342, 357, 363 and 498 A of the I.P.C.
Allegedly, the petitioners used to instigate the husband of the Complainant to assault and torture her and they
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30939 of 2014 (2) dt.28-01-2015 2/3 also used to participate in the assault and torturous act as husband of the Complainant is of weak mind and further she was kidnapped and was restrained in a room but however she came out and lodged the case.
Submission is of false implication and further that the petitioners have got no concern with the family affairs of the Complainant and her husband. These petitioners are living separately but only with a view to colour the case they have been made accused and against them also wrong allegations have been alleged.
The learned counsel for the Complainant opposes the prayer for bail by submitting that these petitioners are more responsible than the husband.
Considering the submissions urged at the bar, going through the records and noticing that the petitioners are relatives of husband of the Complainant and there are allegations against them also but considering their position and stand that they are living separately, the petitioners in case of their arrest or surrender within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order shall 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. C.J.M. Supaul in Complaint Case No.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30939 of 2014 (2) dt.28-01-2015 3/3 1012C of 2013, subject to the conditions as laid down in section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) Abhay/- U T