Allowed

Santosh Verma v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC13 May 2019A.B.A./1516/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Ranchi granted anticipatory bail to Santosh Verma and Roshni Devi in connection with Jasidih P.S. Case No.26 of 2017 involving IPC sections 406, 420, 384, 323, 504, 34, 494, and 498A, imposing conditions for investigation cooperation and appearance before the I.O.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to bail bond of Rs. 25,000 each with two sureties, cooperation with investigation, appearance before I.O., and submission of mobile numbers and Aadhar cards.

Santosh Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B.A. No. 1516 of 2019

¶3

Santosh Verma

¶4

Roshni Devi @ Raushani Devi @ Reshmi Devi

¶5

… Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Sarita Devi … Opposite Parties

¶9

------

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. Vineet Prakash, Advocate For the State : Addl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. K.K. Mishra, Advocate ------

¶12

Order No.05 Dated- 13.05.2019

¶13

Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Jasidih P.S. Case No.26 of 2017 (G.R. No. 100 of 2017) registered under sections 406/420/384/323/504/34/494/498A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

Heard the parties.

¶15

The Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and for the selfsame occurrence, the informant has filed Jasidih P.S. Case No.285 of 2016. It is further submitted that the petitioner no.1 has no illicit relationship with the petitioner no.2 as the petitioner no.2 is the cousin sister of the petitioner no.1 and the police has submitted the final report and did not send up the petitioners for trial but the learned magistrate found prima facie case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶16

Learned Addl. P.P. assisted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶17

Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the above named petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶18

Hence, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of this order, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Deoghar, in connection with Jasidih P.S. Case No.26 of 2017 (G.R. No. 100 of 2017) with the condition that the petitioners will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will furnish their mobile numbers and a copy of their Aadhar Cards in the court below with the undertaking that they will not change their mobile numbers during the pendency of the case subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.

¶19

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶20

Sonu/Gunjan-

Santosh Verma v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Verma 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

Sharda Devi Alias Giri Sharda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bagun Sinku Vs the State of Jharkhand

Charu Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Om Prakash Chandrabanshi Alias Om Prakash Chandravanshi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sushil Kumar Suman Vs the State of Jharkhand

Santosh Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand