Dismissed

Baidyanath Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Oct 2020A.B.A./4545/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail. The Court found specific allegations in the complaint against the petitioner involving illegal dowry demand and torture, deeming them sufficient to deny the privilege under Section 438(2) CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) CrPC was denied to the petitioner and the application was dismissed.

Baidyanath Das Vs the State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4545 of 2020

¶2

Baidyanath Das Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand 2. Rupa Kumari Opposite Parties

¶5

¶6

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.N.Jha, A.P.P For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ashutosh Prasad Joshi, Advocate ---

¶8

Order No. 02/ 3^rd October, 2020

¶9

The matter has been heard through video conferencing. There is no complaint about audio and visual connectivity.

¶10

Petitioner has filed the present application for grant of anticipatory bail expressing his apprehension of arrest for alleged offences inter-alia under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

¶12

Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. According to him, complaint has been filed for alleged offence of illegal demand of dowry to register a case under Section 498-A as also under Sections 379, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code but cognizance has only been taken under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that vague allegation has been leveled against the petitioner as would be evident from the complaint lodged by the complainant wherein the allegations have been leveled against the family members of the petitioner and no specific allegation has been leveled against the petitioner who happens to be the husband of the complainant. He

¶13

further submits that cognizance is only under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, there cannot be any presumption that there is illegal demand of dowry. He further submits that the instant complaint petition is a counterblast of another F.I.R. which has been instituted by the petitioner on 05.10.2019 for commission of offence under Sections 341, 342, 323, 504 and 328 of the Indian Penal Code and it is only thereafter the complaint has been filed by way of counterblast on 23.10.2019 and as such, malicious action has been taken only to falsely implicate the petitioner, therefore, his case may be considered for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶14

On the other hand, Mr. V.N.Jha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail by referring to another allegation leveled in the complaint petition wherein, according to him, specific allegation has been made against the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

Mr. Ashutosh Prasad Joshi, learned counsel, has put his appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 by filing vakalatnama and whose name is also appearing in the daily cause list, has submitted that there is serious allegation against the petitioner. By referring to the allegation leveled in the complaint petition, he submitted that only after seven days of solemnization of marriage, illegal demand has been made and when it was not fulfilled, the petitioner has started torturing the opposite party no.2. In response to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, submission has been made by referring to the Explanation (b) to Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code wherein reference of illegal demand has also been made and therefore, according to him, Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is attracted in

¶16

this case. He further submits that the petitioner, being husband, has not been able to keep the complainant with all dignity, rather, she has been subjected to torture for meeting out the illegal demand of dowry.

¶17

This Court, after having heard the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the nature of allegation leveled in the complaint petition, more particularly, at paragraph 4 wherein specific reference of the petitioner namely Baidyanath Das has been made leveling therein allegation of demand of Rs.60,000/- for purchasing motorcycle from the complainant and when the said demand has not been meted out, she has been subjected to torture.

¶18

Taking into consideration the specific allegation leveled against the petitioner, this Court does not deem it fit and proper to grant privilege of Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the petitioner, therefore, the instant anticipatory bail application is dismissed.

¶19

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J)

¶20

Birendra /

Baidyanath Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baidyanath Das 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

Ram Subhag Singh Vs State of Jharkhand through the Director General Cum Inspector General of Police Jharkhand Ranchi

Ms Nkas Services Private Limited Through Its Autorized Signatory Ashok Kumar Verma Vs The Central Coalfields Limited Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director Jharkhand And Ors.

Madhav Lal Singh Vs State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Badal Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abhishek Kumar Ray Alias Lebra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashok Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand