Surendra Mahto @ Surendra Kumar Mahto v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26032 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-103 Year-2023 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE - JHANJHARPUR District- Madhubani ====================================================== Surendra Mahto @ Surendra Kumar Mahto son of Ram Singh Mahto villageNarha, Ps- Manigachhi, Dist- Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Sangeeta Devi Wife of Surendra Mahto village- Narha, Ps- Manigachhi, Dist- Darbhanga At Present Daughter of Radhey Shyam Mahto, villageSukhair, Ps- Jhanjharpur, Dist- Madhubani ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Jitendra Kumar Bharti For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Ram Priya Sharan Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 03-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a complaint case, punishable for the offence under Sections 494, 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Petitioner is husband of the complainant/opposite party no. 2 and it is alleged that he subjected complainant to cruelty and harassment for dowry and lastly, ousted her from matrimonial house.
4. From perusal of order dated 28.09.2024 passed in M.R. Case No. 44 of 2023 by learned Principal Judge Family
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26032 of 2025(7) dt.03-02-2026 2/2 Court, Madhubani, which was filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2, it appears that petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 9,000/- per month towards maintenance to opposite party no. 2 with effect from the presentation of said application i.e. 28.02.2023, but till date, petitioner has not complied said order and did not pay a single penny to opposite party no. 2.
5. Under these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to petitioner and accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay U T