The High Court of Jharkhand rejected the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail in a case alleging dowry harassment and cruelty. The Court held that custodial interrogation was necessary due to the serious nature of allegations and the petitioner's failure to pay maintenance.
Prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
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.3044 of 2020
------
Ranjan Kumar @ Ranjan Kumar Baranwal
.... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Priti Baranwal .... .... .... Opposite Parties -----CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Dev, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Himanshu S. Pandey, Advocate Mr. Prakash Chandra, Advocate ------
Order No.04 Dated- 22.09.2021
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
Apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.1117 of 2017 registered under Sections 323, 341, 379, 498-A, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act whereas cognizance has been taken under Sections 498-A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.
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, has treated the opposite party No.2 with cruelty in connection with demand of dowry and it is also alleged that as per the demand of the petitioner and his relatives, at the time of marriage cash of Rs.2,00,000/-, gold jewelries, valuable clothes were given and considerable amount of utensils were also presented worth Rs.1,00,000/-. It is alleged that after reaching his house after marriage, the petitioner went to Belari, Karnataka where he was working as mechanic and supervisor and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month and after departure of the petitioner from the matrimonial house of the complainant, the relatives of the petitioner started ill-treating the complainant by saying that the parents of the complainant has cheated them by giving less dowry and insisted the complainant to bring Rs.2,00,000/- more as dowry and wanted to send back the complainant to her house unless she fulfills their demand. The complainant requested her family members to pay the said amount over phone but the
family members of the complainant could not meet the said demand. Thereafter, the diet of the complainant was reduced and she was frequently abused and was treated like a servant because of her failure to fulfill the demand of Rs.2,00,000/- to be given to her by her family members and when the complainant protested to the same, she was threatened to be killed and all the jewelries of the complainant as well as her mobile phone was seized. The complainant somehow gave the information to her brother through a person and after that the complainant was taken to her parents’ house. Thereafter, the petitioner reached the father’s place of the complainant and abused the complainant and her relatives. The complainant submitted a complaint in the court of S.D.J.M., Deoghar and thereafter a Panchayati was convened upon which the complainant was taken to her in-laws’ house but there was no reduction in cruelty meted out to her and she was continuously abused and assaulted. The petitioner forcibly obtained the signature of the complainant on a plain paper and when the same was protested by the complainant, she was assaulted. On getting the information, the brother of the complainant again took her to her paternal house but the complainant’s in-laws did not allow to take her clothes and jewelry with her while leaving her in-laws house. Again, there was a Panchayati but the petitioner and his relatives did not obey the verdict of the Panchayati and insisted that unless and until Rs.2,00,000/- is paid as dowry, they will not take the complainant and she was assaulted again and her gold jewelries were snatched away. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that there is a delay of two years in lodging the case but the petitioner is not ready and willing to resume conjugal life with his wife nor is he ready and willing to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.2,70,000/- which is due in terms of the order dated 20.02.2019 passed in Original Maintenance Case No.208 of 2017 passed by the Family Court, Deoghar in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. It is also submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State being assisted by the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 vehemently oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has no respect for law as he is insisting upon getting dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and also not ready to abide by the order passed by the Family Court, Deoghar regarding payment
of maintenance to the complainant. Hence, keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner, his custodial interrogation is required during the investigation of the case. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case and his conduct in not paying the maintenance to the opposite party No.2, 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.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
Animesh/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is eligible for anticipatory bail given the serious allegations of dowry harassment.
Whether custodial interrogation is necessary considering the petitioner's refusal to pay maintenance.
Whether the delay in filing the case and the petitioner's conduct affect the grant of bail.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Ranjan Kumar @ Ranjan Kumar Baranwal
The State of Jharkhand
Priti Baranwal
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
