Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a dowry-related FIR alleging ouster from matrimonial home. Court granted bail subject to monthly maintenance payment and mediation referral.
Anticipatory bail granted subject to maintaining family accused and paying Rs.3,000/month maintenance.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2386 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-235 Year-2020 Thana- BEGUSARAI COMPLAINT CASE District- Begusarai
======================================================
Shiv Balak Mahto @ Subalak Mahto @ Subalak Kumar S/O Late Nag Mahto @ Nago Nishad R/V- Lagdovi Simaria, P.S.- Chakia (O.P.) Barauni, DistrictBegusarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar For the State : Ms.Veena Kumari Jaiswal For the Informant Mr. Sandeep Kumar Gautam ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Petitioner, who is husband of opposite party no2., is said to have ousted the opposite party no.2 from her matrimonial home in association of his family members over the dowry demand.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is an innocent person and has committed no offence. Petitioner has neither made any dowry demand nor drove her out of her matrimonial home nor
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2386 of 2023(3) dt.08-05-2023 2/3
tormented her over the demand of dowry. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Md. Naimul Haque Ansari @ Naimul Haque Ansari & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar , reported in 2006 (3) PLJR 182 .
However, the petitioner is ready to give Rs.3,000.00 (Rupees Three Thousand) per month as maintenance to opposite party no.2 in first week of every month. It goes without saying that the aforesaid payment shall be subject to any order passed in matrimonial maintenance case or any other collateral proceeding. If the petitioner fails to give the aforesaid amount on two consecutive dates to opposite party no.2, his bail bond shall automatically be cancelled.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, under instruction, submits that opposite party no.2 undertakes to provide her bank account details to the petitioner within a period of two weeks by submitting the same on affidavit before the learned court below.
In that view of the matter, let the above named petitioner, be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2386 of 2023(3) dt.08-05-2023 3/3
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending/successor Court in connection with Complaint Case No. 235 (C) of 2020, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.,
If so advised, either of the parties will be at liberty to make an application before the learned Court below for referring the matter to the District Mediation Center for the purpose of reconciliation or one time settlement.
(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J)
devendra/-
U T
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case alleging dowry-related offences under Sections 498A IPC?
Whether the petitioner's undertaking to pay maternity maintenance satisfies the conditions for bail?
Whether the matter should be referred to District Mediation Center for reconciliation?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Md. Naimul Haque Ansari @ Naimul Haque Ansari & Ors. Vs. The State of BiharReferred¶19
Md. Naimul Haque Ansari @ Naimul Haque Ansari & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar, 2006 (3) PLJR 182
Shiv Balak Mahto @ Subalak Mahto @ Subalak Kumar
Soni Devi @ Sonia Kumari
State of Bihar
Anjani Kumar Sharan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
