Allowed

Vivek Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Oct 2021A.B.A./4815/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a complaint under Section 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court imposes conditions including surrender within eight weeks, deposit of victim compensation, and furnishing of a bail bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to surrender within eight weeks, deposit of Rs. 40,000 interim compensation, and furnishing of Rs. 25,000 bail bond with two sureties.

Vivek Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.4815 of 2021

¶2

------

¶3

Vivek Kumar Singh .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand .... .... 2. Radha Kumari Ray ....Opposite Parties -----CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Kr. Chakraverty, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanat Kumar Jha, Addl.P.P For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. ------

¶4

Order No.03 Dated- 04.10.2021

¶5

Heard the parties.

¶6

Apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint-cum-Protest Petition Case No.1014 of 2016 instituted under Sections 498-A 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.

¶7

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being husband of the opposite party no.2 treated her with cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. It is next submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and general and omnibus in nature. It is further submitted that because of marital discord between the parties, this false case has been foisted against the petitioner. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the trial of the case and undertakes to pay ad interim victim compensation of Rs.40,000/- without prejudice to his defence in this case to the opposite party no.2. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶8

Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State being assisted by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

¶9

Considering the submissions of learned counsels and the facts and circumstances stated above, I am inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court within eight weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrendering, the petitioner will be enlarged on bail on depositing a demand draft of Rs.40,000/- as ad interim victim compensation without prejudice to his defence in this case drawn in favour of the opposite party no.2 and on

¶10

furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned SDJM, Bokaro in connection with Complaint-cum-Protest Petition Case No.1014 of 2016 with the condition that he will co-operate with the trial of the case and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶11

In case the petitioner deposits the said demand draft, the court below is directed to issue notice to the opposite party no.2 and on her proper identification, the court below shall handover the same to her forthwith.

¶12

In case the petitioner deposits Rs.40,000/- in favour of the opposite party No.2, the same shall be adjusted towards maintenance, if any or full and final settlement, if any, between the parties.

¶13

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶14

Pappu/

Vivek Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Kumar Singh 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

Neha Parveen Vs the State of Jharkhand

Raj Kishore Mahato Vs the State of Bihar Now the State of Jharkhand Represented by Chief Secretary

Rupesh Prasad Sah Alias Rupesh Prosad Sah Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Wasim Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rohit Kandhwe Alias Rohit Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manoranjan Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand