Ranjan Kumar Mahto @ Ranjan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40689 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-90 Year-2020 Thana- MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Ranjan Kumar Mahto @ Ranjan Kumar Son of Chandeshwar Mahato Resident of village- Pachpakadi Hirapatti, P.S.- Dhaka, District- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

Sangeeta Devi W/O Ranjan Kumar Mahato D/O Suraj Mahato Resident of village- Pachpakadi Hirapatti, P.S.- Dhaka, District- East Champaran ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Ms. Punam Shrivastava, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP For the O.P.-2 :

None ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 10-09-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, learned A.P.P. for the State. Today again, nobody appears on behalf of opposite party no. 2. On 27.08.2024 also, there was non-appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 2.

2. The petitioner, husband of the opposite party no. 2, apprehends his arrest in a complaint case punishable for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Allegation against petitioner is of matrimonial cruelty and demand of dowry.

4. While denying the allegations made in the complaint petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40689 of 2024(4) dt.10-09-2024 2/2 petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case merely because he happens to be husband of opposite party no. 2. He never committed any torture with opposite party no. 2 or demanded any dowry and is still ready to keep the opposite party no. 2 with full honour and dignity. Moreover, the case is triable by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner has further relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Md. Naimul Haque Ansari @ Naimul Haque Ansari & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2006(3) PLJR 182.

5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of eight weeks from today, let this petitioner, as named above, 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 the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Muzaffarpur (East), Muzaffarpur in connection with Complaint Case No. 90 of 2020, Trial Nos. 2602 of 2020, 2303 of 2023, subject to the conditions, as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay U T