High Court of Jharkhand rejected an application for anticipatory bail. Despite the petitioner's submission that Santahl customs allow polygamy, the court found insufficient grounds to grant bail given allegations of a second marriage and dowry-related torture.
Application for anticipatory bail stands 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. 2480 of 2020
Purna Chandra Murmu … ... Petitioner
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
-------For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Trivedi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, A.P.P. For the O. P. No. 2 : Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, Advocate --------
Order No. 03: Dated: 3rd September, 2020
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State assisted by learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.
Defects, as pointed out by the office, are ignored.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 2177 of 2019, registered for the offence punishable under sections 498A, 406, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The marriage of the complainant was solemnized with the petitioner on 18.06.2017. It has been alleged that a demand was made for a bullet motor cycle and since the same was not fulfilled she was assaulted and ultimately ousted from her matrimonial house. Allegation has also been leveled about the petitioner solemnizing a second marriage.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under the Santahl customs polygamy is permissible and, therefore, on such score, the petitioner cannot be proceeded against in the case u/s 498A I.P.C.
Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has stated about the specific demand of bullet motorcycle made from the side of petitioner and the subsequent ouster of the complainant from her matrimonial house.
On consideration of the aforesaid facts it appears that the petitioner had solemnized a second marriage and there is also allegations regarding the demand and consequent torture upon the complainant on nonfulfillment of the said demand.
Regard being had to the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
This application, accordingly, stands rejected.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
MM
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in a matrimonial dispute involving allegations of dowry demand and bigamy?
Whether Santahl customs permitting polygamy provide a defense against proceedings under section 498A IPC?
Whether the court should extend anticipatory bail despite allegations of a second marriage and ouster of the complainant?
Purna Chandra Murmu
The State of Jharkhand
Lalita Besra
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
