Ghanshyam Mandal @ Ghanshyam Kumar Mandal Vs the State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28390 of 2024

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-539 Year-2022 Thana- MADHUBANI COMPLAINT CASE District- Madhubani

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

Ghanshyam Mandal @ Ghanshyam Kumar Mandal Son Of Lila Mandal @ Liladhar Mandal Resident Of Village - Balirajpur, Police Station - Babubarhi, District - Madhubani

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Bihar

¶8

Shila Devi Wife Of Ghanshyam Mandal @ Ghanshyam Kumar Mandal Resident Of Village - Balirajpur, Police Station - Babubarhi, District - Madhubani. At Present Daughter Of Kailu Mandal, Resident Of Village - Gajhara, Police Station - Ladania, District - Madhubani

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

2 20-05-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶13

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Madhubani Complaint Case No. 539/2022 dated 17.06.2022 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 498A, 406, 494 and 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and the co-accused persons are alleged to have tortured the complainant mentally and physically due to non-fulfillment of demand of Rs.

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28390 of 2024(2) dt.20-05-2024 2/3

¶16

50,000 and a motorcycle as dowry.

¶17

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

¶18

that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner who is husband of the complainant. The petitioner neither demanded any dowry nor tortured the complainant. 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." Learned counsel has further submitted that Section 498A of the IPC is triable by the Magistrate. Learned counsel has further relied on the judgments in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (2022) 10 SCR 351 and Md. Asfak Alam Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr passed in Criminal Appeal No(s). 2207 of 2023 arising out of Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No. 3433 of 2023 . Learned counsel has further submitted that the complainant was married with the petitioner nine years ago. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition.

¶19

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

¶20

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28390 of 2024(2) dt.20-05-2024 3/3

¶22

of the case, let the above named petitioner, in the event of his arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Madhubani in connection with Madhubani Complaint Case No. 539/2022 dated 17.06.2022, subject to conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with further condition:-

¶23

(i). The petitioner is directed to remain physically present before the learned Court below on each and every date, failing which on two consecutive dates without reasonable cause, the bail bonds of the petitioner are liable to be cancelled.

¶24

7. If so advised, either of the parties will be at liberty to make an application before the Court below for referring the matter to the District Mediation Centre for the purpose of reconcilation or one time settlement.

¶25

8. The application stands allowed.

¶26

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J)

¶27

atul/-

¶28

U T

Ghanshyam Mandal @ Ghanshyam Kumar Mandal v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghanshyam Mandal @ Ghanshyam Kumar Mandal v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chhotu Kumar @ Manish Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Kanhaiya Choudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Suresh Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Rakesh Bhushan Singh @ Rakesh Bhushan Vs the State of Bihar

Prakash Singh Vs The State of Bihar