In this application for anticipatory bail, the High Court of Jharkhand confirmed an interim order granting relief to the petitioner, who faced allegations of dowry harassment and forced termination of pregnancy in a matrimonial dispute.
The order dated 16.1.2020 granting interim anticipatory bail is confirmed; application allowed.
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. 31 of 2020
Pintu Modak. ….. Petitioner
Versus
Coram: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
-------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar Pathak, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Jitendra Tripathy, Advocate --------
05/17-8-2020 Heard the parties.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with C.P. Case No. 3910 of 2018.
The marriage of the complainant was solemnized with the petitioner on 29.02.2016. It has been alleged that there was a demand of Rs.1,00,000/- and a motorcycle and on non fulfillment of which, she was subjected to torture. Her pregnancy was also terminated due to administration of medicines.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a suit has been filed by the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights which was decreed exparte. It has been stated that the allegations are general and omnibus in nature.
Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has submitted that a maintenance case was also instituted by the complainant in which after contest the same was decided in favour of the complainant. Learned counsel further submits that the inlaws of the complainant had forcibly administered medicines which had resulted in termination of her pregnancy on three occasions.
The allegations appear to be general and omnibus in nature. It further appears as per the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 that Rs.4000/- per month has been awarded as maintenance in favour of the complainant.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the order dated 16.1.2020 by which an interim order of anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner is hereby confirmed.
This application stands allowed.
( Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)
Rakesh/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner apprehending arrest in connection with a complaint alleging domestic violence, dowry harassment, and termination of pregnancy.
Pintu Modak
The State of Jharkhand
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
