The High Court of Chhattisgarh rejected an anticipatory bail application. Despite applicant claims that dowry and bigamy allegations were false, the court noted a marriage certificate with a prior wife was available in the case diary and found no sufficient grounds to grant bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC (A) No. 1126 of 2021
Manish Kumar Soni S/o Vinod Kumar Soni, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Holding No. 23, P.N.B. Colony, Niyam Allied Tower, Sonari, Jamshedpur. Jharkhand.
---- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.
| --- Respondent | ||
|---|---|---|
| For Applicant | : Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate. | |
| For State | : Mr. Roshan Dubey, PL. | |
| For Objector/Complainant | : Mr. M.K. Sinha, Advocate. |
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board
20/09/2021
Heard.
2
Jurisdictional Magistrate, Jamshedpur intimating the conduct of complainant of leaving her matrimonial house. Applicant and his family members have tried level best to bring back the complainant to her matrimonial house, but they did not succeed. Applicant has filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. Said application was registered and notice was issued to complainant. Complainant made her appearance and submitted reply on 06.04.2021. In her reply, there is no mention that applicant has performed earlier marriage, prior to marriage with her. Allegation of earlier marriage of applicant is also false and baseless. Complainant herself has moved an application before Sakhi Stop Centre, Jashpur for their counselling. Her statement was recorded but there also no mention of allegation of earlier marriage of applicant. Offence under Section 494 of IPC is non cognizable, there is no specific allegation with regard to demand of dowry. Applicant is working as “Chartered Accountant” and there are chances of settlement of dispute between the parties. Other co-accused persons have been enlarged on anticipatory bail. Hence, applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
3
Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge
Jamal/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant deserves enlargement on anticipatory bail given allegations of prior marriage and cruelty.
Whether the availability of a marriage certificate with a previous partner serves as a ground to deny anticipatory bail.
Whether the applicant successfully discharged his burden of proving that the dowry and bigamy allegations were false.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Manish Kumar Soni
State of Chhattisgarh
Parth Prateem Sahu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
