Allowed

Mukesh Agarwal Alias Mukesh Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Nov 2020A.B.A./2542/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail petition, the High Court of Jharkhand held it was a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions including depositing ad interim compensation, furnishing a bond with sureties, and cooperating with the investigation under Section 377 IPC and related charges.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail subject to depositing Rs. 3,00,000 ad interim compensation, furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties, surrendering within four months, and cooperatin

Mukesh Agarwal Alias Mukesh Kumar Vs the State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2542 of 2020

¶2

Mukesh Agarwal @ Mukesh Kumar … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Riya Sharma Agarwal … Opposite Parties

¶3

------

¶4

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶5

For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Adv. For the State : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Ms. Moushmi Chatterjee, Adv. ------

¶6

Order No.03 Dated- 03.11.2020

¶7

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

¶8

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Sindri P.S. Case No.67 of 2019 registered under sections 498A/323/377/504 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of D.P. Act.

¶9

The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner treated the victim with cruelty and committed unnatural sexual offence with her and took video footage of that. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and admittedly the victim was living separately from the petitioner since 28.07.2019 and on 05.04.2020, she committed suicide while she was in the house of her father. It is next submitted that the marriage between the parties were ideal marriage and no dowry was given at the time of marriage. It is next submitted that the petitioner is working in Delhi in a private company as an office boy and earns between Rs.10,000-12,000/- per month. It is also submitted that the petitioner took the deceased to Delhi but the deceased-opposite party no.2 withdrew herself from the society of the petitioner. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India reported in (2018)10

¶10

SCC 1 that in paragraph no. 645.1, it has been declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code which criminalizes consensual sexual acts of Adults in private is violative of Article 14, 15 and 19 of Constitution of India, in case the consent is free and is completely voluntary in nature and devoid of any duress and coercion. It is then submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- as ad interim victim compensation to the father of the informant namely Shyam Sundar Sharma without prejudice to his defence in this case and undertakes to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶11

Learned P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that since in this case unnatural sexual acts was committed by force by the petitioner hence, the ratio of Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India (supra) is not applicable in this case.

¶12

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 petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of four months from the date of this order, he shall be released on bail on jointly depositing a demand draft of Rs. 3,00,000/- as ad interim victim compensation in favour of father of the informant namely Shyam Sundar Sharma and on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M., Dhanbad, in connection with Sindri P.S. Case No.67 of 2019 with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will furnish his mobile number and a copy of his Aadhar Card in the court below with the undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the pendency of the case subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.

¶13

In case, the petitioner deposits the ad interim victim compensation amount, the court below is directed to issue notice to the father of the informant namely Shyam Sundar Sharma and hand over the said demand draft to him, after proper identification.

¶14

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶15

Sonu/Gunjan-

Mukesh Agarwal Alias Mukesh Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Agarwal Alias Mukesh Kumar 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

Barik Sah Alias MD Barique Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mehtab Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pradeep Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sukulmoni Baskey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Awesh Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sumit Mukherjee Vs the State of Jharkhand