Allowed

Rakesh Kumar v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC11 Apr 2014A.B.A./4627/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand granted anticipatory bail to a husband facing charges of dowry-related cruelty and criminal intimidation. The Bail Court emphasized the pending维持 of conjugal rights suit and the risk of job loss. It imposed a mandatory monthly deposit for the child's upbringing as a condition of bail.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail allowed subject to furnishing a bail bond and undertaking to deposit Rs. 10,000 monthly for the wife's daughter's upbringing.

Rakesh Kumar Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr. — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B.A. No. 4627 of 2013

Rakesh Kumar

…... Petitioner

-Versus-

The State of Jharkhand and anr. …... Opposite parties

¶7

CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr.Manoj Kumar Choubey, Adv. For the State : Mr.Sardhu Mahto, A.P.P. For O.P.No.2 : Mr.Pradeep Kr.Nayak,Adv.

¶9

Order no.05 Dated 11th April, 2014

¶10

Apprehending arrest for the offence under Section 498A/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the petitioner-husband has filed this anticipatory bail application.

¶11

The petitioner was married to opposite party no.2 in the year 2007 and from the said wedlock, one daughter was born and the daughter is stated to be aged about five years.

¶12

The grievance of opposite party no.2 is that during the period from 22.5.2012 to 30.5.2013 at Raigarh, Chattisgarh State, she was meted out with cruelty for demand of dowry. The petitioner is working in Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited and posted at Vishakapatnum. According to the opposite party no.2, her parents came to Vishakapatnum and tried to take her back to Bokaro, to which the petitioner objected. Alleging that there was demand of dowry and also that she was meted cruelty, opposite party no.2 has filed the complaint, which has been registered in B.S.City PS Case No.327 of 2013.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is working in Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited, which is a Public Sector Undertaking and posted at Vishakapatnum and if the petitioner is arrested, there is every possibility of the petitioner losing his job. It was further submitted that the petitioner is ready to take back the wife and daughter and keep them with full dignity and honour. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that petitioner has also filed a Title Matrimonial Suit being Title Matrimonial Suit No.93 of

¶14

¶15

2013 and Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking restitution of the conjugal rights. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has made genuine concern for the wife and daughter and inspite of his efforts, the opposite party no.2 is refusing to rejoin the petitioner.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail and submitted that even in the campus of Bokaro Civil court , opposite party no.2 was attacked by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 further submitted that the petitioner is addicted to drinking and he is in the habit of using abusive language and physical torture in intoxicated condition and, therefore a reasonable apprehension of danger of life is caused to opposite party no.2 and, therefore opposite party no.2 is not in a position to rejoin her husband.

¶17

This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

¶18

The petitioner has filed Title Matrimonial Title Suit No. 93 of 2013 for restitution of the conjugal rights. The allegation and counter allegation between the parties could be fought in the Title Matrimonial Suit. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the petitioner is employed in a Public Sector Undertaking, in case petitioner is arrested, there is every possibility of petitioner losing his job and his future will be doomed.

¶19

Considering the strained relationship between the parties and also taking into consideration that the Matrimonial Suit is pending between the parties, the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail.

¶20

Since the daughter is stated to be aged five years and said to be studying in Standard-I, the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- ( ten thousand) per month for education and upbringing of the daughter. The said sum of Rs.10,000/- per month is payable to opposite party no.2 on her bank account on 10th of each month, commencing from April, 2014 itself. The opposite party no.2 is directed to furnish the bank account number to the petitioner to enable him to deposit the money in

¶21

¶22

her bank account. In case of default of depositing the money by the petitioner, the opposite party no.2 will be at liberty to approach this Court.

¶23

Accordingly, the petitioner- Rakesh Kumar, in the event of his arrest/surrender, is directed to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in connection with B.S. City PS Case No.327 of 2013(G.R. No.1317 of 2013), subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C., with further condition that the petitioner shall undertake to deposit Rs.10,000/- ( ten thousand) per month on 10th day of each month, commencing from April, 2014, in the bank account of opposite party no.2.

¶24

( R.Banumathi, C.J. )

¶25

G.Jha/

Rakesh Kumar v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

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.

Ranjeet Sen and Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Antu Pandey Alias Anant Kumar Pandey Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Shiv Kumar Nirala Vs The State Of Jharkhand