Allowed

Ramswaroup Yadav And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Feb 2016A.B.A./423/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand granted anticipatory bail to five petitioners facing arrests under IPC sections 498A and Dowry Prohibition Act. The court directed surrender within two weeks and payment of a bail bond to the Judicial Magistrate. Petitioners claimed settlement and lack of connection to the offence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners were released on bail on arrest or surrender within two weeks on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties.

Ramswaroup Yadav And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B.A. No. 423 of 2016

¶3

Ramswaroup Yadav,

¶4

Shyam Sunder Yadav,

¶5

Chhatru Yadav,

¶6

Shankar Yadav,

¶7

Mahesh Yadav .... Petitioner(s) Versus State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party

¶8

Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA

¶9

For the petitioner (s): Mr. Arun Kumar Sinha For the opposite party : Addl.P.P.

¶10

15.02.2016 Apprehending their arrest in connection with Jainagar PS case No.112 of 2015 registered under sections 498A/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the petitioners pray for grant of anticipatory bail .

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State .

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after investigation, the police submitted final form against the petitioners, but the court took cognizance of the offence against these petitioners without applying his judicial mind as it appears from perusal of the order taking cognizance dated 17.9.2015 wherein no reason has been disclosed while taking cognizance of the offence. It is also submitted that the petitioners are devars, bhainsur and cousin father-in-law and have no connection with the offence alleged and that the petitioners and the informant have already settled the dispute out side the court and a compromise petition has also been filed in the court below though section 328 IPC is not compoundable.

¶13

Learned counsel for the State fairly submitted that final form has been submitted against the petitioners.

¶14

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, all the five petitioners above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of two weeks positively from the date of this order, shall 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 learned Judicial Magistrate, Koderma, in connection with Jainagar P.S. Case 112 of 2015 ( GR No. 745 of 2015), subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶15

Ambastha/( R.N.Verma, J. )

Ramswaroup Yadav And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramswaroup Yadav And Ors. 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

Rupesh Kumar Saw Alias Babloo Saw Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Krishna Baskeyand Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Mithilesh Roy Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Jagarnath Gope Alias Jagarnath Manjhi Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Mukesh Kumar Chandrabanshi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand