Allowed

Sadruddin Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC1 Oct 2020A.B.A./4466/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand granted anticipatory bail to petitioners facing charges under IPC Sections 498A, 307, etc., and DWPA. Conditions included surrender within six weeks, furnishing a bail bond, and ensuring no harassment of the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Grants anticipatory bail; directs surrender within 6 weeks; imposes condition not to disturb the complainant.

Sadruddin Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.4466 of 2020

¶2

------

¶3

Sadruddin Ansari 2. Ramjan Ansari .... .... …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Jainab Khatoon .... .... ....Opposite Parties

¶4

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶5

For the Petitioners : Ms. Pinki Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, A.P.P

¶6

Order No.02 Dated- 01.10.2020

¶7

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

¶8

Apprehending their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.171 of 2018 instituted under Sections 498A, 323, 341, 342, 307, 406, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act but cognizance taken under Sections 498-A, 323, 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶9

Ms. Pinki Kumari- learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.

¶10

In view of personal undertaking given by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners are respectively the father-in-law and brotherin-law of the complainant/opposite party No.2 and the allegations against the petitioners are all false and general and omnibus in nature. It is then submitted that the petitioners undertake that they will not disturb or annoy the complainant/ opposite party No.2 in any manner during the pendency of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶12

Learned A.P.P appearing for the State opposes the

¶13

prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

¶14

Considering the submissions of learned counsels and the facts and circumstances stated above, I am inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to surrender in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Bokaro within six weeks from today and in the event of their arrest or surrendering, they will be enlarged on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Bokaro in connection with Complaint Case No.171 of 2018 with the condition that they will not disturb or annoy the complainant/ opposite party No.2 in

¶15

any manner during the pendency of the case and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶16

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶17

Animesh/

Sadruddin Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadruddin Ansari 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basudeo Singh Vs The C B I Through The S P

Dr Sumit Kumar Alias Sumit Mandal Vs Shyamli Gorain Alias Mandal

Naresh Kumar Rastogi Vs the State of Jharkhand through Vigilance

Mrs Rekha Shankar Vs Sri Kumud Kumar Jha

Mahabir Prajapati Vs the State of Jharkhand

Baidyanath Mahata Vs the State of Jharkhand