Jaidev Mahto @ Jaidev Mehta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76658 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1517 Year-2016 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Araria ====================================================== JAIDEV MAHTO @ JAIDEV MEHTA Son of Late Dukha Mehta Resident of Village- Raghunathpur, North, P.S.- Bhargama, District- Araria. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.

Sumitra Devi Wife of Jaidev Mheta Resident of Village- Raghunathpur, North, P.S.- Bhargama, District- Araria.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ramesh Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Iftekhar Mahmood ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 27-11-2019 Petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1517C of 2016 instituted for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

Petitioner happens to be husband of the complainant and there is allegation of demand of buffalo and Rs.50,000/- and for that she was assaulted and ousted from the house and there is also allegation that petitioner solemnized another marriage. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that whole allegation is false and concocted and after inquiry the case was found true only under Section 498A IPC and he is still ready to keep her with dignity and care and there is no chance of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76658 of 2019(2) dt.27-11-2019 2/2 tampering with the evidence.

Heard learned APP also.

In view of above facts and circumstances, let petitioner surrender in the court below within a period of six weeks from the receipt of this order and on surrender he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the S.D.J.M., Araria, in connection with Complaint Case No. 1517C of 2016, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and further condition is that one of the bailors of the petitioner shall be a local person having sufficient immoveable property within the jurisdiction of the court concerned and further condition that if opposite party No.2 is ready to reside with the petitioner, he has to keep her with dignity and care.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/- U T