In Niwash Kumar Son of Nand Kishor Mehta @ Kishori Mahto vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N;K Singh passed a 2-page long order dated November 3, 2025, wherein, it concluded:''....the parties are directed to appear before the Coordinator, Supreme Court Mediation Center on 12th November, 2025 at 11.00 a.m. The Coordinator shall appoint a Mediator to enable the parties to make an effort to settle the matter amicably. 3. Initially, the parties are permitted to appear virtually and thereafter, the parties shall appear as per the directions of the Mediator. 4. All expenses towards travel and lodging of the wife shall be borne by the petitioner-husband. 5. List the matter along with Mediation Report on 16.01.2026.''
The case arose out of the order in Niwash Kumar Son of Nand Kishor Mehta @ Kishori Mahto vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh of Patna High Court had passed a 3-page long order dated September 4, 2025, wherein, he concluded:''Considering the heinous nature of allegation and gravity of offence , prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner is rejected.'' The petitioner had approached the High Court apprehending arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 126 ( 2 ), 115 ( 2 ), 109, 351 ( 2 ), 352 and 3 (5) of BNS.
According to the prosecution case, informant namely, Rani Kumari alleged that she got married with this petitioner , Nivas Kumar on December 19, 25 and gift of Rs. 75 lakh and other items were given to this petitioner. After sometime of marriage, this petitioner along with other co-accused persons started torturing and harassing her for demand of dowry. It was also alleged that her husband was involved in immoral activities and also made objectionable videos of her and started threatening to circulate the same on social media . On May 24, 2025 , her husband and her in -laws assaulted her and pressurized her to bring more dowry (including a car) and she was also threatened with dire consequences.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was husband of informant allegation was absolutely false and concocted. At no point of time, this petitioner tortured or harassed the informant for dowry. He neither demand dowry nor involved in unnatural sex with informant or made any video of the incident. Petitioner claims clean antecedent.
The counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is direct and specific allegation against this petitioner that he was involved in unnatural sex with the informant and also made vide of the incident and thereafter continued to blackmail her. He also committed torture and harassment for dowry and also tried to kill her for non-fulfillment of the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment