Allowed

MD Quadir v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Jharkhand HC7 Dec 2015A.B.A./3942/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand granted anticipatory bail to a petitioner accused of dowry harassment and molestation. The judge noted a prior dissolution petition and suspected false implication before directing surrender and bond submission.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail conditioned upon surrender within three weeks and furnishing a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties of similar amount.

MD Quadir Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B.A. No. 3622 of 2015

¶3

With

¶4

A.B.A. No. 3942 of 2015

¶5

Md. Athar @ Athar Alam @ Pappu, Son of Dr. Md. Mustaque Ahmad Ansari, Resident of Dulhin Bazar, P.O. and P.S. Dulhin Bazar, DistrictPatna, Bihar.

¶6

….. Petitioner in A.B.A. No. 3622 of 2015

¶7

Md. Quadir, Son of Dr. Md. Mustaque Ahmad Ansari, Resident of Dulhin Bazar, P.O. and P.S. Dulhin Bazar, District-Patna, Bihar.

¶8

….. Petitioner in A.B.A. No. 3942 of 2015

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Jharkhand.

¶11

… Opposite Party

¶12

The State of Jharkhand.

¶13

Shaista Rizvi, W/o Md. Quadir, d/o-late Gulshan Rizvi, R/o Railway Colony, Quarter No. D/S 01/147/B, P.O and P.S. Balidih, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand.

¶14

.. Opposite Parties in A.B.A. No. 3942 of 2015

¶15

Coram: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶16

For the Petitioners : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailendra Jit, APP For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr.Ravi Kumar Singh, Advocate

¶17

03/07.12.2015 The petitioner in A.B.A. No. 3622 of 2015 being the brother in law of the complainant and petitioner in A.B.A. No. 3942 of 2015 being the husband of the petitioner apprehend their arrest in connection with Balidih P.S. Case No. 114 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 1152 of 2015, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 420, 406, 354(B), 323, 313, and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶18

The allegation made in the complaint petition, which was initially filed, is that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with one Md. Kadir on 7.6.2013 and subsequently there was a demand of dowry and torture upon the complainant on non-fulfillment of dowry. The allegation has been levelled against the brother in law of the complainant ( petitioner in A.B.A. No. 3622 of 2015) of entering into her room and trying to molest her.

¶19

-2-

¶20

It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the on 27.11.2014, an information was given to the police station by the husband, which was followed by another information dated 10.02.2015 apprehending institution of the case by the complainant.

¶21

It has further been submitted that the complainant was having illicit relationship both prior to marriage and after marriage with several other persons and on bringing the same to the notice of inlaws of Md. Kadir, an undertaking was given by the complainant, which was signed apart from the complainant by her maternal uncle and mother, in which she had categorically stated that she will try to mend her ways.

¶22

It has also been submitted that prior to institution of the complaint case, a petition for dissolution of marriage had already been preferred by the husband on 23.02.2015 and as a counter blast, the present complaint case was instituted on 16.04.2015.

¶23

So far as the petitioner in A.B.A. No.3622 of 2015 is concerned, it has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner is the brother in law of the complainant and he lives separately, which is substantiated by the address mentioned in the voter I.D. Card.

¶24

Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and has submitted that paragraph 20 of the complaint petition specifically deals with the petitioner in A.B.A. No. 3622 of 2015, in which there is an averment that it was this petitioner who had molested her. So far as the undertaking, which had been made by the complainant, it has been submitted that under duress and coercion made by the husband, who is in the police service, the complainant was forced to sign on the said document.

¶25

It has been submitted that since there is specific allegation against both the petitioners being the husband as well as the brother in law of the complainant of demanding dowry, torturing the complainant and try to enter into her room and having physical relationship with the complainant, the anticipatory bail application deserves to be rejected.

¶26

-3-

¶27

It is not in dispute that the suit for dissolution of marriage before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna was instituted much prior to the complaint case lodged by the complainant. The husband of the complainant had given information to the police station with respect to apprehension of being made accused in a case by the complainant. The averments made in paragraph 22 of the complaint petition about the undertaking made under threat by the accused persons seems to be an afterthought as on 31.07.2014, the undertaking is said to have been signed but the complaint case has been lodged after about 8 months and if at all there was a threat meted out to the complainant, the said fact could have been brought to the notice of the authorities immediately. Moreover, the undertaking also bears the signature of the mother as well as the maternal uncle of the complainant, which has not been disputed.

¶28

Considering the surrounding circumstances, enumerated above, the false implication of the petitioners at the behest of the complainant cannot be ruled out. In view of what has been stated above, I am inclined to allow these applications.

¶29

Accordingly, the petitioners, named above, are directed to surrender in the court below within a period of three weeks from today and pray for regular bail, and in that event, they will be enlarged on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, in connection with Balidih P.S. Case No. 114 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 1152 of 2015, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶30

( Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

¶31

Rakesh/

MD Quadir v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Quadir 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

Yashwant Singh Alias Yaswant Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sikha Mondal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kuku Alias Kuku Rawani Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kritya Nand Mandal Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

MD Athar Alias Athar Alam Alias Pappu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Barun Kumar See and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand