Allowed

Punit Prakash @ Dhamendra Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC19 Apr 2022MCRCA/135/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order granting anticipatory bail to four applicants charged under Section 498A IPC. Court held it was a fit case and directed release on personal bond with conditions to appear and not interfere with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail allowed; release on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety subject to specified conditions.

Punit Prakash @ Dhamendra Yadav Vs State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRCA No. 135 of 2022

¶5

Punit Prakash @ Dhamendra Yadav S/o Ghasiram Yadav Aged About 26 Years R/o Vaishalinagar, Kusmunda, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

Dwas Devi Yadav W/o Ghasiram Yadav Aged About 49 Years R/o Vaishalinagar, Kusmunda, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

Thaneshwar Prasad Yadav S/o Ghasiram Yadav, Aged About 37 Years R/o Vaishalinagar, Kusmunda, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

Ghasiram Yadav S/o Khikhram Yadav Aged About 55 Years R/o Vaishalinagar, Kusmunda, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

---- Applicants

¶10

Versus

¶11

State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Station House Officer, Police Station Kusmunda, Civil And Revenue District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

---- Respondent

¶13

For Applicants	: Mr. Punit Ruparel, Adv.
For Respondent/State	: Mr. Anmol Sharma, P.L.

¶14

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board

¶15

19/04 /2022

¶16

Heard.

¶17

This application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicants who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 09/2022 registered at Police Station- Kusmunda, DistrictKorba (C.G.) for commission of the offence punishable under Section 498A/34 of IPC.

¶18

As per the prosecution case, complainant lodged a complaint

¶19

¶20

against the applicants that on 29.06.2020, marriage between the complainant and the applicant No. 1 was solemnized according to Hindu Rites and Rituals, since then she was peacefully residing with her husband Punit Prakash and after some time of marriage, the complainant has harassed and tortured by the applicants for demand of dowry and was also harassed in the name of using Tonahi, due to this the complainant left her matrimonial house and residing at her parental house. Based on this offence has been registered against the applicants.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the complainant has left her matrimonial house of her own will, the complainant has clearly stated in her FIR that she want to take back of dowry and stridhan from the applicants, which shows that the applicants have falsely been implicated in this case. He next submits that the applicant No. 1 has filed an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act before the learned Family court Camp Court Katghora, District Korba, C.G. against the complainant copy of the same is annexed herein as annexure-A/4, but the complainant wanted to take divorce and did not want to live with her husband, therefore, she concocted false case against the applicants, so, the present applicants may be granted anticipatory bail.

¶22

On the other hand, counsel for the State however opposes the application for anticipatory bail.

¶23

After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular nature of case,

¶24

¶25

and considering that the offence is triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants in connection with aforesaid crime number, they shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/each, with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting/investigating officer or the Court concerned, as the case may be, with the following terms and conditions:

¶26

(i) that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation before the concerned investigating officer as and when required;

¶27

(ii) that the applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts or the case as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶28

(iii) that the applicants shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and

¶29

(iv) that the applicants shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

¶30

Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge

¶31

H.L. Sahu

Punit Prakash @ Dhamendra Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punit Prakash @ Dhamendra Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalit Chandra Nahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sonkeliya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gendlal Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohd. Wahid Meman Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sundresh Shrivastava Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Devesh Chandel Vs State of Chhattisgarh