Dismissed

Ashish Kumar Mishra v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Mar 2021A.B.A./274/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand rejected the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail in a complaint case involving allegations of cruelty, dowry demand, and dowry-related harassment under Sections 498-A and 323/34 IPC. The Court held that the serious nature of the allegations required custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

Ashish Kumar Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand — Matrimonial and Divorce | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.274 of 2021

¶2

------

¶3

Ashish Kumar Mishra @ Ashish Mishra .... …. Petitioner Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand 2. Lekha .... .... .... Opposite Parties ------

¶5

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶6

------ For the Petitioner : Ms. Sweety Topno, Advocate For the State : Ms. Lily Sahay, Addl.P.P For the O.P. No.2 : Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, Advocate

¶7

Order No.02 Dated- 15.03.2021

¶8

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

¶9

Apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.363 of 2020 in which cognizance has been taken under Sections 498-A, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, being the husband of the opposite party No.2, treated her with cruelty and caused hurt in furtherance of the common intention with the co-accused persons. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false and general and omnibus in nature. It is further submitted that out of the wedlock, the petitioner and the opposite party No.2 have been blessed with a male child. It is next submitted that there is contradictions in the averments made in the complaint by the opposite party No.2. It is then submitted that the brother of the complainant/opposite party No.2, without seeking the permission of the petitioner, took her to her paternal house and then she stopped talking and receiving the phone calls of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner filed a petition for restitution of the conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Family Court, Ranchi and thereafter this complaint has been filed. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶11

Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State being assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant/opposite party No.2 vehemently oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submit that the petitioner, at the time of marriage, demanded Rs.8,50,000/- in cash and gold and silver ornaments of Rs.4,00,000/- and household articles of Rs.1,05,000/- besides a motorcycle worth

¶12

Rs.70,000/- and the parents of the complainant/opposite party No.2 had to fulfill the said demand but the desire of the petitioner for the dowry was not satiated and when the complainant/opposite party No.2 came back to her house, the petitioner took all her jewelries. It is further submitted that the complainant/opposite party No.2 was compelled to sleep on the floor during her pregnancy and when she tried to inform about the same to her parents, she was threatened to be killed by the petitioner and after the delivery of the child she was again mentally harassed. It is next submitted that the complainant/opposite party No.2 had resigned from her job under the pressure of the petitioner. It is then submitted that the petitioner and the co-accused intentionally misused the credit card of the complainant/opposite party No.2 and also availed card loan in the name of the complainant/opposite party No.2 by using her bank account. It is also submitted that the credit loan of Rs.1,45,000/- was adjusted from the salary of the complainant/opposite party No.2 and rest loan amount is due at present but the petitioner has not taken care to pay even a single penny in respect of the said loan. It is further submitted that though the complainant/opposite party No.2 has been blessed with a male child on 03.06.2019, the petitioner has not taken care to look after the said child. It is next submitted that the petitioner used to abuse the complainant/opposite party No.2 from time to time. Hence, it is submitted that in view of serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, the petitioner ought not be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶13

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of illtreating of wife with cruelty in connection of demand of dowry and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the privileges of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.

¶14

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶15

Animesh/

Ashish Kumar Mishra v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Kumar Mishra 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

MD Sahrukh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kamna Roy Alias Kamana Roy Vs the Union of India through Central Bureau of of Investigation

Soleman Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashok Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shyam Kishore Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Yogesh Kumar Alias Yogesh Kumar Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand