The High Court of Jharkhand disposed of an anticipatory bail petition filed by a petitioner accused of cruelty under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Court rejected the prayer.
The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail was rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 817 of 2019
Amit Baran Bal … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rashmi Rekha @ Babli … Opposite Parties
------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate For the State : Addl. P.P.
------
Order No.04 Dated- 14.05.2019
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Sadar Mahila P.S. Case No.4 of 2018 registered under sections 498A/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of D.P. Act.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. P.P. for the State.
The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner married the victim on 28.01.2013 and after two months of marriage, the petitioner and his family members treated the victim with cruelty for a failure to bring a motorcycle from her father and she was tortured physically and mentally for failing to bring Rs.4 lakhs from her father and on seeing the plight of her, her father gave Rs.1 lakh to the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner stopped torturing the informant for some days and in the meanwhile the informant-victim became pregnant and gave birth to a daughter and after giving birth to a daughter again the treatment of cruelty and torture of the informant was started by the petitioner and his family members and another reason for the petitioner of treating the victim with cruelty was that one lady namely Nabodita Bhuiyan who was introduced as a cousin sister of the petitioner was in fact a kept of the petitioner and because of the relationship of the petitioner with Nabonita Bhuiyan, the petitioner attempted
to kill the informant-victim. Somehow the informant clandestinely managed to give a call to her friend from the mobile phone of her father-in-law and disclosed her plight to her and managed to get away from the house of the petitioner. Thereafter the family members of the petitioner came to the house of the parents of the informant and assaulted and abused her and threatened to take her daughter and the victim went with them to the house of the petitioner but after some days, she was again ill-treated with cruelty in connection with demand of Rs.3 lakhs, one LED TV and sofa set and when the parents of the informant expressed their inability to meet the said demand, the jewelries of the informant was taken away by the petitioner and his family members and the kept of the petitioner assaulted the informant after pulling her hair and the purse of the informant was snatched away. It is further submitted that the allegation against the petitioner are all false and drawing attention of this Court to the statement of the victim recorded in another case being G.R. No.585 of 2016 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it is submitted that in that case in her statement the informant has stated that the accused of that case used to blackmail her and demanded ransom and on being blackmailed and pressurized by the accused of that case, she once established physical relationship with the accused of that case. It is further submitted that the informant desires to live luxurious life which the petitioner could not afford and that is the real dispute between the parties and the petitioner has filed C.P. Case No.559 of 2017 in the family court, Cuttack for dissolution of marriage with the informant. It is next submitted that under the pretext of pursuing B.A. examination, the victim went to her parental house in September, 2016. It is also submitted that in view of the conduct of the informant, the petitioner is not ready and willing to pay any victim compensation to the informant. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that there is direct allegation of serious nature against the petitioner and treating the
informant with cruelty because of non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry and his illicit relationship with his kept namely Nabonita Bhuiyan and there is requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the serious nature of direct allegation against the petitioner and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above named petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
Sonu/Gunjan-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail in a case alleging cruelty under Section 498A IPC and dowry doum acts.
Whether the serious nature of direct allegations and requirement for custodial interrogation precludes the grant of anticipatory bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Amit Baran Bal
The State of Jharkhand
Rashmi Rekha @ Babli
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
