Pramod Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52697 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-31 Year-2024 Thana- NAWADAH COMPLAINT CASE District- Nawada ====================================================== 1.

Pramod Mahto, S/O Late Munshi Mahto, R/O Village- Rajapur, P.S- Roh, Distt.- Nawada.

2.

Sunaina Devi, W/O Pramod Mahto, R/O Village- Rajapur, P.S- Roh, Distt.- Nawada.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Sunita Devi, W/O Akhilesh Yadav, R/O Village- Raja Bigha, P.S- Roh, Distt.- Nawada, Presently Residing With Her Father Namely Mahendra Mahto, Resident Of Village- Kumhrawan, P.S- Roh, Distt.- Nawada. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajesh Ranjan Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pradeep Narain Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 28-08-2024 Heard Mr. Rajesh Ranjan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Pradeep Narain Kumar, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 31 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 498A, 494, 406 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (in short 'D.P. Act') but the cognizance has been taken under Section 498A of IPC and Section 4 of D.P. Act.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52697 of 2024(2) dt.28-08-2024 2/3

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No. 1 is father-in-law and petitioner No. 2 is mother-in-law of the complainant and they have neither demanded any dowry nor tortured the complainant, in fact, the petitioners are living separately from the husband of the complainant and they have no concern with the affairs of the husband of the complainant. Learned counsel further submits that the marriage in between the complainant and the son of the petitioners took place in the year 2018 and complaint is filed by O.P. No.2 in the year 2024. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have got fair and clean antecedent.

4. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.

5. Having considered the submissions noted hereinabove and mainly the facts that both the petitioners are said to be father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant (O.P. No. 2) and the case of O.P. No. 2 is based on a complaint and her marriage with the son of the petitioners took place in the year 2018 and the complaint was filed by her in the year 2024, in my opinion, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, let both the petitioners named-above, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52697 of 2024(2) dt.28-08-2024 3/3 below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court concerned in connection with Complaint Case No. 31 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. (Shailendra Singh, J) maynaz/- U T