Disposed

Rajendra Prasad Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC7 Aug 2020A.B.A./177/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand considered an application for anticipatory bail in a matrimonial dispute involving dowry allegations. Dismissing the plea for immediate bail, the Court extended an interim order for 12 weeks, allowing time for the parties to settle.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application disposed of; interim order extended by 12 weeks for settlement.

Rajendra Prasad Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A. B. A. No. 177 of 2020

¶3

Rajendra Prasad Yadav @ Rajendra Yadav, son of Jhubba Mahto, resident of Sakinaan-Paphara PO & P.S.-Markachho, District-Koderma (Jharkhand) … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Janti Devi W/o Rajendra Prasad Yadav @ Rajendra Yadav, D/o Shri Basudev Yadav R/o Sakin-Narangi PO&PS-Dumri, District-Giridih, Jharkhand … Opposite Parties

¶7

¶8

(Through VC)

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

¶10

For the Petitioner : Ms. Priyanka Bobby, Adv. For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, A.P.P For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sujit Kr. Singh, Adv. -------

¶11

06/ 07.08.2020 The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection to Dumri P.S. Case No.66 of 2019 which was registered on 27.05.2019 for the offences punishable under sections 323, 379, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶12

The application seeking anticipatory bail by the petitioner in this case vide A.B.P No.1521 of 2019 has been dismissed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Giridih by an order dated 17.12.2019.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that about 20 years of the marriage a First Information Report has been lodged on false and frivolous allegations to harass the petitioner and it is basically a matter of ego clash between the petitioner and his wife and therefore the petitioner who has fathered three children is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail in this case.

¶14

Mr. Sujit Kr. Singh, the learned counsel, who appears for the O.P. No.2 submits that in the year 2006 a complaint case was filed by the wife of the petitioner and on an undertaking given by the petitioner the matter was settled however the petitioner has again started harassing and humiliating his wife in connection to demand of dowry. It is

¶15

¶16

submitted that the petitioner has completely neglected to maintain his wife and three children and although his wife is always ready and willing to join her husband in her matrimonial home it is the petitioner whose conduct has given apprehension to O.P No.2.

¶17

The learned counsel for O.P. No.2 further submits that the petitioner has filed a case of theft against his wife and in-laws and in that case they have recently received summons.

¶18

In “ Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus:

¶19

“ 111. No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. We are clearly of the view that no attempt should be made to provide rigid and inflexible guidelines in this respect because all circumstances and situations of future cannot be clearly visualised for the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. In consonance with the legislative intention the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail should necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. As aptly observed in the Constitution Bench decision in Sibbia case that the High Court or the Court of Session has to exercise their jurisdiction under Section 438 CrPC by a wise and careful use of their discretion which by their 5 long training and experience they are ideally suited to do. In any event, this is the legislative mandate which we are bound to respect and honour”.

¶20

Normally, in a matrimonial dispute which comes to the court after about two decades, irrespective of the allegation of demand of dowry, the accused is granted indulgence by the court, but in view of the materials brought on record of this case, I am not inclined to interfere in this matter. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to settle the matter with his wife and for that purpose extending the period of interim order

¶21

¶22

dated 31.01.2020 passed by this Court in the present proceeding by another 12 weeks, the present anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.

¶23

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

¶24

R.K.

Rajendra Prasad Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Prasad Yadav 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Oraon Vs Amrita Kumari And Anr.

Vijay Shankar Thakur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Khusbu Parveen Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Manoj Tantubai Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jai Hind Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sattar Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand