Raju Sulanki v. the State of Jharkhand
Case brief
What is this about?
In this bail application, the petitioner Raju Sulanki sought anticipatory bail in proceedings for offences under Section 498A IPC and the DV Act. The High Court noted the petitioner's inability to pay Rs. 3,500 monthly interim maintenance. Consequently, the court refused to grant anticipatory bail.
What did the court decide?
Prayer for anticipatory bail rejected as petitioner is not inclined to grant maintenance of Rs. 3,500/- per month.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B. A. No. 1209 of 2018
Raju Sulanki …… Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Rukmani Sandil …… Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH
For the Petitioner :Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate For the State :A.P.P
05/Dated: 03/08/2018
Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with C-1 Case No. 168 of 2016 for the offence under sections 498A of the Indian Penal code and under section 3/4D.P. Act.
Despite valid service of notice O.P. No. 2 has failed to appear.
Today, petitioner is physically present along with learned counsel.
It appears that petitioner is husband of O.P. No. 2 and on a pointed query, as to whether he is ready to pay Rs. 3,500/- to the O.P. No. 2 per month as interim maintenance, petitioner has stated that he is not in a position to pay the said amount.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail given his inability to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 3,500/- to the wife.
Whether the failure of O.P. No. 2 to appear despite valid service of notice affects the disposal of anticipatory bail application.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Raju Sulanki
- respondent
The State of Jharkhand
- respondent
Rukmani Sandil
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Jharkhand HC
- Decided on
- · August
- Registered
- Case no.
- A.B.A./1209/2018
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court