Dismissed

Sidheshwar Kalundia v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 Jan 2021B.A./5926/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought bail in a dowry death case involving IPC sections 323, 504, 498A, 304B and DP Act. The court rejected the bail plea due to serious allegations and risk of absconding, directing the trial court to conclude the trial within six months with COVID-19 precautions.

What did the court decide?

Bail of the petitioner rejected. Trial directed to be concluded within six months.

Sidheshwar Kalundia Vs the State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B.A. No. 5926 of 2020

¶3

Sidheshwar Kalundia … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶4

------

¶5

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶6

------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.D. Agarwal, Addl. P.P. ------

¶7

Order No.03 Dated- 05.01.2021

¶8

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

¶9

The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Manjhari (Tantnagar O.P.) P.S. Case No.72 of 2019 registered under sections 323/504/498A/304B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of D.P. Act.

¶10

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed the dowry death of his wife. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the wife of the petitioner died otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage with the petitioner and there is allegation of dowry death against the petitioner. It is next submitted that the petitioner belong to ‘HO’ community in which as per custom the groom side gives clothes, jewelry, expenses of marriage and there is no custom of dowry. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.

¶11

The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that in view of the overwhelming circumstances appearing against the petitioner and there is every chance of the petitioner absconding, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be admitted to bail.

¶12

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of committing dowry death of his wife, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above named petitioner be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.

¶13

Keeping in view the period of custody undergone by the petitioner and the serious nature of offences involved in this case, notwithstanding any order in administrative side of this Court, the trial court is directed to take up the trial of the case expeditiously and to conclude the trial within six months from the date of receipt of this order by the trial court. It is made clear that the trial be conducted and witnesses be examined by observing the precautions relating to COVID -19 Pandemic.

¶14

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶15

Sonu-Gunjan/

Sidheshwar Kalundia v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sidheshwar Kalundia 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

Kailash Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Birsa Surin Alias Besra Surin Vs the State of Jharkhand

Aftab Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Laxman Sao Alias Laxman Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shankar Dayal Roy Vs the Union of India through CBI

Chandan Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand