Mahesh Sharma @ Mukund Sharma @ Mahesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59363 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-255 Year-2019 Thana- MAKHDUMPUR District- Jehanabad ====================================================== MAHESH SHARMA @ MUKUND SHARMA @ MAHESH KUMAR Son of Rajendra Sharma Resident of Village - Kanauli, P.S.- Makhdumpur (Tehta O.P.), District - Jehanabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Lovekush Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Renuka Ratnakar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 25-09-2019 Heard both sides.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Makhdumpur(Tehta O.P.) P.S. Case No.255 of 2019 registered under Sections 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The informant is the daughter-in-law of the petitioner. The informant alleged that she was married with Rahul Kumar, the son of the petitioner, in the year 2017 but some days after marriage, additional demand of Rs.5 lacs was made and her husband and other in-laws began to torture her. She further alleged that two months ago, her husband took her to Delhi but her husband fled away leaving her in the house. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59363 of 2019(2) dt.25-09-2019 2/3 informant and her husband was living in Delhi and they quarreled with each other. When the husband did not respond, she came to her house and lodged this case implicating the entire family members. The petitioner has got no concern with the occurrence.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that there is allegation against the petitioner also that he was torturing his daughter-in-law due to non-fulfillment of demand of additional dowry.
It appears from the F.I.R. itself that of course the informant made allegation that on account of non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry, her father-in-law, mother-in-law and other family members including her husband subjected her to torture but she further disclosed that two months ago, her husband took her to Delhi and her husband left her inside the house and fled away. Her husband was not responding. The informant could not inform the police in Delhi and she came to her house and lodged this case making her husband and other family members accused in the case.
Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid and the fact that petitioner is father-in-law of the informant, let the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59363 of 2019(2) dt.25-09-2019 3/3 petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M., Jehanabad in connection with Makhdumpur(Tehta O.P.) P.S. Case No.255 of 2019, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Saurabh/- U T