Allowed

Kailu Mukhiya v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC7 Dec 2021CR. MISC./11620/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Examination of a petition for anticipatory bail in a matrimonial dispute where the petitioner, apprehending arrest under various IPC and Dowry Punishment Act sections, sought bail citing long standing marriage and mutual dispute.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail of Rs.10,000 with two sureties of similar amount in the event of arrest or surrender within four weeks.

Kailu Mukhiya Vs The State of Bihar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Patna HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11620 of 2020

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-355 Year-2019 Thana- SAHARSA COMPLAINT CASE District- Saharsa

¶3

======================================================

¶4

KAILU MUKHIYA Son of Saini Mukhiya Resident of Village - Pama (DihTola), P.S.- Sour Bazar, (Patarghat O.P.), District- Saharsa

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Heera Devi Wife of Kailu Mukhiya, D/O- Badri Mukhiya Resident of Village - Pama (Dih-Tola), P.S.- Sour Bazaar (O.P. Patarghat), DistrictSaharsa

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance :

¶11

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pramod Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Md. Mushtaque Alam ======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶13

5 07-12-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶14

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶15

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 355/2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147/149/323/498(A)/379/494 of the Indian Penal Code and Section ¾ of the D.P. Act.

¶16

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the marriage is 25 years old and they have two grown up sons and due to some misunderstanding, the present case has been filed by the opposite party No. 2. The petitioner is ready to live with his wife.

¶17

Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 submits

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11620 of 2020(5) dt.07-12-2021 2/2

¶19

that she is also interested in getting the relationship restored.

¶20

In that view of the matter, the present anticipatory bail

¶21

application is allowed.

¶22

Accordingly, let the petitioner above named be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Saharsa, in connection with Complaint Case No. 355/2019, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

¶23

The petitioner shall make efforts to stay with his wife. It is expected that the children will also co-operate in restoration of relationship between their parents.

¶24

(Sandeep Kumar, J)

¶25

Saif/- U T

Kailu Mukhiya v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailu Mukhiya v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Rohit Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Rohit Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Md. Allauddin Vs The State of Bihar

Mahesh Kumar Singh @ Mahesh Sharma @ Thikedar Mahesh Sharma Vs the State of Bihar

Sanjeev Kumar Mehta @ Mantu @ Shanjeev Kumar Mehta @ Mantu Mehta Vs The State of Bihar