Partly allowed

Shiv Kumar Nirala v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Apr 2014A.B.A./61/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner facing charges of dowry harassment. The court directed surrender within three weeks, deposit of a maintenance amount to the complainant, and furnishing of a bond with sureties, subject to the outcome of a pending maintenance suit.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to surrender within three weeks and deposit of Rs. 9000 per month as maintenance in the complainant's bank account.

Shiv Kumar Nirala Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Maintenance and Alimony | Jharkhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B.A. No. 61 of 2014

¶3

Shiv Kumar Nirala... ... ... ... ... ....Petitioner

¶4

Vs.

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

¶6

------

¶7

For the Petitioner: Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the State: Mr. Hardeo Pd. Singh, APP

¶8

For the Complainant: Mr. Purnendu Saran, Advocate.

¶9

¶10

Order No. 05 ------ Dated 11th April, 2014

¶11

Petitioner is represented by learned counsel, Mr. Nilesh Kumar, State is represented by Mr. Hardeo Pd. Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor and complainant is represented by Mr. Purnendu Saran.

¶12

The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Jugsalai (Bagbera) P.S. Case No. 376 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 3351 of 2013, filed under Sections 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the Court of S. Sharma, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur.

¶13

The prosecution case, in brief, as per the written complaint of the informant Smt. Anu Nirala is that her marriage was solemnized on 24.02.2013 with the accusedpetitioner as per Hindu rites and rituals. Thereafter, her inlaws started demanding dowry since she stepped in her matrimonial house. They continuously used to threaten her

¶14

by saying that she would be divorced, if she fails to fulfill their demand for dowry and moreover, on 11.09.2013 she was forced to leave her matrimonial house by the petitioner, who locked the gate after ousting her, to prevent her entry in the house. On the repeated request of the informant, the petitioner did not open the lock of the gate and the informant had to remain in open in rain for long period and lastly the informant informed her brother and father and thereafter informed the Bagbera Police Station, wherein this case has been registered.

¶15

Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Hardeo Pd. Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Purnendu Saran for the complainant.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has field a divorce suit seeking dissolution of marriage in Matrimonial Suit No. 364 of 2013 and only after filing of the said divorce suit, the complainant has filed the complaint against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is employed as Junior Engineer in TISCO in Jamshedpur and if the petitioner is arrested, the petitioner may lose his job and, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for anticipatory bail.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that earlier the petitioner had filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking quashing of the First Information Report and that petition has already been

¶18

dismissed. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner treated the complaint with cruelty and there was demand of dowry by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has illicit relationship with his Bhabhi. It is further submitted the since demand of dowry was not fulfilled, the complainant was driven out from the matrimonial house and now she has no means to sustain herself. Learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that the complainant had also filed a maintenance case being Maintenance Case No. 266 of 2013 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur.

¶19

Learned A.P.P. also opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶20

It appears that due to strain relationship between the parties, the petitioner has filed Matrimonial Case No. 364 of 2013 for decree of divorce and the complainant has filed Maintenance Case No. 266 of 2013 for maintenance before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur.

¶21

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is employed as a Junior Engineer in TISCO, Jamshedpur, the petitioner, above named, is directed to surrender before the Court below within a period of three weeks from today and on such surrender he is 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 to the satisfaction of the Court of learned Chief

¶22

Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in connection with Jugsalai (Bagbera) P.S. Case No. 376 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 3351 of 2013, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C and further subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay Rs. 9000/- per month as maintenance (in Maintenance Case No. 266 of 2013) to the complainant in her bank account. The maintenance amount of Rs. 9000/- is to be deposited in the bank account on or before 10^th of every succeeding month of English Calendar. The complainant shall furnish the bank account number to the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is made clear that the payment of maintenance of Rs. 9000/- per month, as a condition imposed by this Court while granting anticipatory bail, shall be subject to the outcome of the maintenance case filed before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur.

¶23

(R. Banumathi, C.J.)

¶24

Alankar/-

Shiv Kumar Nirala v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar Nirala 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.

Ranjeet Sen and Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Antu Pandey Alias Anant Kumar Pandey Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Rakesh Kumar Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.