OM PRAKASH MEHTA v. MAMTA KUMARI
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
application stands disposed of
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 307, 323, 341, 342, 498A
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438(2)
Key paragraphs
- Para 1010. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this application stands disposed of. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) shikha/- U T
Judgment
THE STATE OF BIHAR PATNA Versus
MAMTA KUMARI WIFE OF OM PRAKASH MEHTA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - MADHUBANI WARD NO.10, MEHTA TOLA, P.S. - BALUA BAZAR, DISTRICT - SUPAUL ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Kamal Kishore Singh Mr.Ramchandra Sahni Mr. Nafisuzzoha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 4 27-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 341, 342, 323, 307, 498A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Petitioner, who is husband of complainant, is said to have ousted her from the 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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53897 of 2023(4) dt.27-02-2024 drove her out of her matrimonial home nor 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.
In that view of the matter, let the above named petitioner, be released on 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 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.536C of 2021, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.,
Petitioner is ready to pay Rs.3000.00 (Rupees Three Thousand) per month to the informant/complainant in the second week of every month. If the petitioner fails to pay the aforesaid amount two consecutive months, informant/complainant shall be at liberty to move before the learned Court below for cancelling the bail bond of the petitioner.
It goes without saying that the aforesaid payment shall Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53897 of 2023(4) dt.27-02-2024 be subject to any order being passed in matrimonial maintenance case or any other collateral proceedings.
Learned counsel for the complainant is directed to furnish the bank account details of the complainant in the learned Court below. If she fails to furnish the same, the aforesaid amount will be deposited in the learned Court below which will be released in favour of the complainant after she furnishes her bank account details.
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.
Operative part
With the aforesaid observation and direction, this application stands disposed of. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) shikha/- U T
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: application stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 307, 323, 341, 342, 498A; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.