Allowed

Ranjeet Sen and Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Apr 2014A.B.A./330/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court at Ranchi granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, who are the sister and husband of the accused in a dowry harassment case. The court directed their surrender within three weeks to be released on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to surrender within three weeks to be released on bail of Rs. 10,000 each with sureties under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Ranjeet Sen and Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B.A. No. 330 of 2014

¶3

1.Ranjeet Sen @ Ranjit Kumar Sen 2.Papiya Sen ... ... ... ... ... ....Petitioners Vs. The State of Jharkhand .... ... ... Opp. Party

¶4

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

¶6

------ For the Petitioners: Mrs. Dr. Amita Srivastava, Advocate For the State: Mrs. Lily Sahay, APP

¶7

¶8

Order No. 02 ------ Dated 11th April, 2014

¶9

Petitioners are represented by learned counsel, Mrs.

¶10

Dr. Amita Srivastava and State is represented by Mrs. Lily

¶11

Sahay, Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶12

The petitioners seek anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with C.P. Case No. 2359 of 2012, filed under Sections 498-A, 341, 323 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of Sri Abhishek Prasad, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Dhanbad.

¶13

The complaint case, in brief, is that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized on 17.02.2012 with Pabitra Ghosh at Kolkata according to Hindu customs. The complainant's father gave cash of Rs. 50,000/-, ornaments etc. at the time of marriage. Thereafter, the complainant live peaceful life for 2-3 months in her sasural. They started demanding Hero Honda motorcycle and a cash of Rs. 50,000/- as dowry which was not fulfilled and thereafter the complainant was subjected to cruelty by various manners. Her husband has given medicines to destroy her pregnancy. Her Dewar used to keep bad eyes upon her and many times

¶14

tried to outrage the modesty of the complainant. Her parents tried to patch up the matter but the accused persons are adamant for their demand. Thereafter, the complainant was brought in the house of these petitioners at Dhanbad where other accused also came to receive the dowry demand, but it was refused by the parents and thereafter the complainant was assaulted mercilessly with fists, slaps and legs with her advanced stage of pregnancy and the accused persons snatched all her ornaments which were given by her father and dragged her out from the house with threatening.

¶15

Heard Mrs. Dr. Amita Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Lily Sahay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the petitioners are sister and sister's husband of the accused-husband and they are resident of Bankura, West Bengal. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that since the petitioners are not residing with the complainant and her husband, there is no possibility of demanding dowry and treating the complainant with cruelty by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that only because of the strain relationship between the complainant and her husband false case has been lodged against the petitioners.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the petitioners are residing at Dhanbad and there are sufficient material to show that the petitioners were also torturing the complainant and opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

¶18

The petitioners are only sister and sister's husband of the accused-husband. Whether the petitioners have actually demanded dowry and treated the complainant with cruelty remains to be seen at the time of trial. The occurrence is way back of the year 2012 and by this time, the substantial part of the investigation must have been completed. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, no progress in the investigation shall be hampered.

¶19

Accordingly, the petitioners, above named, are directed to surrender before the Court below within a period of three weeks from today and on such surrender they are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court of Sri Abhishek Prasad, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Dhanbad in connection with Complaint Case No. No. 2359 of 2012 subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶20

(R. Banumathi, C.J.)

¶21

Alankar/-

Ranjeet Sen and Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet Sen and Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand

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

Anil Kumar Das Alias Guddujan Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Tukan Saw and Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Pritam Kahar Alias Preetam Kahar Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Antu Pandey Alias Anant Kumar Pandey Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Rakesh Kumar Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Shiv Kumar Nirala Vs The State Of Jharkhand