2025:JHHC:11154 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2196 of 2025 Devendra Kumar Mehta @ Devendra Prasad Mehta, aged about 39 years, so of Sri Kashi Mahto, resident of village- Sindur, P.O. + P.S.- Sadar, District- Hazaribagh, State- Jharkhand … Petitioner - Versus - 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Madhu Devi, W/o Shri Devendra Kumar Mehta @ Devendra Prasad Mehta, D/o Shri Jageshwar Kumar Mehta, R/o Village- Kanaudi, P.O. +P.S.- Daru, Dist.- Hazaribag. … Opp. Parties ------ CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate --- 05/11.04.2025 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Daru P.S. Case No. 93 of 2018, corresponding to G.R. Case No.501 of 2019 for the offences registered under sections 341/323/379/498A/328/420/452 of the I.P.C., Sections 3 / 4 of D.P. Act and Sections 3 / 4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, pending in the court of Shri Vivek Kumar, learned J. M., 1st Class, Hazaribag. The petitioner happens to be the husband of the informant. It is alleged that to enforce the demand of dowery, the informant was tortured and ultimately, she was driven away from matrimonial home. It appears that petitioner was earlier granted anticipatory bail vide A.B.A. No.1383 of 2019 with a condition that he will receive the informant back to matrimonial home and keep her and maintain her with full dignity and honour as his lawful wife. It further appears that petitioner did not receive his wife to matrimonial home and subsequently surrendered. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submitted that she had filed a case for maintenance, in which Rs. 8 lakhs have fallen due, which the petitioner has not yet paid to the Informant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the maintenance order was passed ex-party and now he has challenged the same. It was further submitted that the petitioner has paid Rs.10,000/- to the informant -2- and he undertakes that once he will be released on bail, he will pay the entire amount. Considering the nature of allegation and the fact that petitioner did not comply with the undertaking given in the anticipatory bail application, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail stands rejected at this stage. (Ambuj Nath, J.) Jay/-