In an anticipatory bail petition, the High Court dismissed the application, holding that allegations of second marriage and dowry harassment were serious and credible enough to warrant the trial court's refusal of bail.
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. 453 of 2020
Sattar Ansari, son of Gaji Ansari, resident of Darajmath, PODangapara, P.S.-Littipara, District-Pakur … Petitioner
Versus
(Through VC)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioner : Md. Asadul Haque, Adv. For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, A.P.P For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. S.K. Thakur, Adv.
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection to Complaint Case No.193 of 2018 which was instituted on an allegation of committing offences punishable under sections 498-A and 313 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
04/ 07.08.2020
The marriage of the petitioner with O.P. No.2 was solemnized on 10.05.2016 and his wife has alleged that sufficient dowry was given to him in the marriage. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has contracted a second marriage and in connection to demand of Rs.1 Lac he has subjected O.P. No.2 to harassment and torture. She was given herbal medicines which caused miscarriage on 20.04.2018 and he has refused to take care of O.P. No.2.
In “ Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus:
“ 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 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
2
suited to do. In any event, this is the legislative mandate which we are bound to respect and honour”.
The anticipatory bail application moved by the petitioner vide A.B.P No.323 of 2019 has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur by an order dated 11.12.2019.
This is one of the principles in law that the order of the trial court should be given due weightage and unless there is something perverse or patently illegal, the High Court would not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the trial court.
The allegation against the petitioner made by O.P. No.2 is serious in nature and in view of his second marriage there is a probability of truthfulness in the allegation made by O.P. No.2 in her complaint petition. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in this matter and, accordingly, A.B.A. No.453 of 2020 is dismissed.
The interim order dated 29.01.2020 is vacated.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
R.K.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the dismissal of the petitioner's anticipatory bail application by the trial court in a case involving allegations of second marriage and dowry harassment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of MaharashtraExplained¶15
(2011) 1 SCC 694 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sattar Ansari
The State of Jharkhand
Regina Bibi
Shree Chandrashekar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
