Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.21810 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Arun Mahto @ Arun Kumar Mahto, S/o Janardan Mahto. 2. Pano Devi, wife of Janardan Mahto Both residents of village-Konipar, P.S.-Surajgarha, District- Lakhisarai. .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Sangita Devi, wife of Arun Mahto, D/o Shri Ramdev Mahto, resident of village-Konipar, P.S.-Surajgarha, District-Lakhisarai; at present residing at village-Dighri, P.S.-Surajgarha, District-Lakhisarai. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 12-06-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. At the outset, it is stated that petitioner no. 1, namely, Arun Mahto @ Arun Kumar Mahto, who is husband of the informant has already been taken into custody. In that view of matter, his application is dismissed as infructuous. The case is under [STATUTE] as well as Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is contended that initially a complaint was filed which was referred to the police, pursuant to which, the F.I.R. was instituted and investigation was taken up. Admittedly, the son of petitioner no. 2 was married to the informant in 2006 and the present complaint has been filed five years thereafter in 2011. The petitioner denies the allegation made in the complaint and submits that as a matter of fact, the dispute arose between husband and wife due to matrimonial discord and incompatibility in nature. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21810 of 2012 (2) dt.12-06-2012 2 / 2 2 Be that as it may, considering the nature of allegation, facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner No. 2, namely, Pano Devi in the event of her arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/communication of a copy of this order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai in connection with Surajgarha (Manikpur) P.S. Case No. 22 of 2012 subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr. P.C. and also on the following conditions: (i) That both the bailors will be close relative of the petitioner who will give separate affidavit giving genealogy as to how they are related with the petitioner. (ii) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the court or to any other authority. (iii) That she shall remain present before the court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case. If she wants to remain absent, then she shall take prior permission of the court and in case of compelling and unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent, she will immediately inform the court and request that she may be permitted to be present through the counsel. (iv) That liberty is given to the State/complainant to make an appropriate application for modification/recalling the order granting bail, if for any reason, the petitioner violates any of the conditions imposed by this Court. Sanjeet/- (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 498A

Statute Text:
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Punishment for subjecting a married woman to Cruelty. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.