Raju Mahto v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35082 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-34 Year-2020 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Vaishali ====================================================== Raju Mahto Son of Ram Avtar Mahto Vill.- Malpur - Khatai Tola, P.S.- Dalsingh Sarai, Dist.- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Archana Kumari Daughter of Rameshwar Singh R/O Vill.- Araniya, P.S.- Jandaha, Dist.- Vaishali at Hajipur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner :
Mr. Shubhesh Pandey, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, APP For the O.P.2 :
Mr. Braj Bhushan Poddar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 13-08-2024 Pursuant to order of this Court, the matter was referred to Mediation & Conciliation Centre of Patna High Court, but the dispute between the parties could not be resolved through the process of mediation and as such, mediation failed (Report kept at flag 'M').
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant / opposite party no. 2.
3. The petitioner, who is husband of opposite party no. 2, apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A)/341/323/324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. Petitioner is alleged to have committed torture and harassment with opposite party no. 2 for dowry.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35082 of 2023(5) dt.13-08-2024 2/2
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner denies the prosecution case and submits that at no point of time, he demanded any dowry or committed torture to opposite party no. 2. Learned counsel further submits that pursuant to order passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Vaishali at Hajipur in Maintenance Case No. 102 of 2020, petitioner is paying Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) per month to opposite party no. 2. In fact, the said amount is being deducted from the salary of petitioner by the office of D.R.M. concerned for its payment to opposite party no. 2.
6. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the event of arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks from today, let the above-named petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 34 of 2020, subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay U T