Rajesh Mahto v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43123 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1666 Year-2016 Thana- DARBHANGA COMPLAINT CASE District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Rajesh Mahto Son of Lakhan Mahto Resident of Village- Bhopatti Mohammadpur, P.S.- Kamtaul, District- Darbhanga. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State Of Bihar 2.
Rai Devi Wife of Rajesh Mahto Resident of Village- Bhopatti Mohammadpur, P.S.- Kamtaul, District- Darbhanga, Daughter of Najo Mahto, at present Resident of Village- Bari Mallikpur, P.S.- Jalley, DistrictDarbhanga. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Mazharul Hassan For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 11-09-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Complaint Case No. 1666 of 2016 corresponding to Trial No. 3589 of 2018, registered for the offences punishable under Section 341, 498A, 385, 380 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
As per the complaint case, the complainant was married with the petitioner on 17.04.2016. After marriage, complainant was subjected to torture and cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. On 20.06.2016, all the accused persons including this petitioner, assaulted her and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43123 of 2019(3) dt.11-09-2019 2/2 ousted her from her matrimonial home. Panchayati was held, but even after Panchayati, they did not take the complainant to her matrimonial home. Thereafter, this case was lodged. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Complainant does not want to live with the petitioner.
Considering the facts aforesaid and the fact that petitioner happens to be the husband of complainant, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 1666 of 2016. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T