Mithilesh Mandal @ Mithilesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.69052 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-39 Year-2017 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Mithilesh Mandal @ Mithilesh Kumar Son of Kuldeep Mandal Resident of Village-Ganaura Badharpur,Police Station-Madhusudanpur (Nathnagar),Distt.-Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Praveen Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sri Binod Kumar 2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 05-12-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bhagalpur (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 39 of 2017 instituted for the offence under Section(s) 498(A), 341, 323, 504, 506, 494 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3⁄4 of D.P. Act. Petitioner is husband of informant.

As per written report, informant was married with this petitioner on 11.06.2014. After marriage, the petitioner along with other family members used to torture the informant for demand of dowry. On 25.08.2015, accused persons assaulted the informant and subsequently ousted her from the house. It is alleged that on 27.01.2017, petitioner came to the house of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.69052 of 2018(3) dt.05-12-2018 2/2 informant's father and lived for 2 to 4 days. He made pressure on informant to put signature on the divorce paper. It is further alleged that informant got information that petitioner has performed second marriage on 19.05.2017. The informant went to her matrimonial house then brothers of second wife of petitioner assaulted her and ousted her from the house. Considering the fact that after marriage petitioner used to torture the informant for demand of dowry and also performed second marriage, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, prayer for bail of petitioner is rejected.

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and made efforts to conclude the same as early as possible preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this order.

Petitioner is given liberty to renew the prayer for bail after six months in the event trial is not concluded within aforesaid period.

(Sanjay Priya, J) rakhi/- U T