Dismissed

Baldeo Sao v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Sept 2020A.B.A./163/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application of Baldeo Sao, who faced charges of bigamy. The Court found no denial of the second marriage and refused bail, suggesting surrender within three weeks for a fresh bail hearing below.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail rejected; petitioner directed to surrender within three weeks to seek bail from lower court.

Baldeo Sao Vs the State of Jharkhand — Matrimonial and Divorce | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B.A. No. 163 of 2020

¶3

Baldeo Sao

¶4

… ... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

… … Sunita Devi @ Gudiya Devi Opp. Parties

¶8

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶10

For the Petitioner	:	-------- Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
For the State	:	Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2	:	Ms. Shatakshi, Advocate --------

¶11

Order No. 04: Dated: 4th September, 2020

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.

¶13

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Koderma (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 08 of 2019, registered for the offences punishable under sections 494, 498 A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

The marriage of the informant was solemnized with the petitioner ten years back. It has been alleged that when her health deteriorated she has ousted from her matrimonial house and on 18.06.2019, the petitioner had solemnized marriage with another girl.

¶15

It appears that there is no denial with respect to the solemnization of the second marriage by the petitioner. It further appears from the impugned order that the witnesses have supported the allegations including that of the petitioner solemnizing the second marriage.

¶16

In view of the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶17

This application, accordingly, stands rejected.

¶18

However, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned court below within a period of three weeks and prays for bail, the learned court below shall endeavor to dispose of the bail application expeditiously without being prejudiced by this order.

¶19

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶20

Baldeo Sao v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baldeo Sao 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manmohan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Purna Chandra Murmu Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Shamim Khan Alias Guddu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Govindjee Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arun Kumar Alias Arun Kumar Ray Vs the State of Jharkhand