Allowed

Ashok Kumar Sao Alias Sahu v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Oct 2021B.A./5965/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand granted regular bail to the petitioner in a 498A IPC case involving allegations of cruelty. The court allowed the petitioner to remove defects in the application within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released on regular bail on furnishing bonds of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of like amount each, subject to removal of defects within 30 days and medical clearance.

Ashok Kumar Sao Alias Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand — Domestic Violence | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI [CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION] B.A. No. 5965 of 2021

¶2

Ashok Kumar Sao @ Sahu ..... Petitioner(s)

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand & Anr. …. Opp. Party(s)

¶5

CORAM :HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO

¶6

_______ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prem Mardi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor For the Informant/ O.P.2 : Mr. Ajay Kr. Pathak, Advocate

¶7

-----

¶8

Order No.03, Dated 04.10.2021.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though there are defect no. 9(i) to 9(iii) in the bail application, as pointed out by the Stamp reporter dated 17.04.2021, but undertakes to remove the defect(s) within 30 days, from today, [as the physical court has started from today] and prayed that bail application may by heard, as it is a regular bail application and the petitioner is in custody since 10.02.2021.

¶10

Considering the same, this Court is inclined to hear the bail application on merits, but with condition that petitioner shall remove the defect(s) within 30 days from today.

¶11

Joint Registrar (Judicial) is directed to ensure the compliance of this order. Heard, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has prayed for grant of regular bail in connection with Latehar Mahila P.S. Case No. 14/2020 registered under Section 498A/323/325/313/504/506/307/34 I.P.C. and Sections 3 /4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has filed an application on 16.03.2020 under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and thereafter also filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar on 12.09.2020. Thereafter the First Information Report has been lodged on 26.09.2020 against the petitioner on the typed complaint filed before the Officer-in-Charge, Mahila Police Station, Latehar.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that so far allegation made in the FIR with regard to Section 313, 323 and 325 IPC is concerned, no cogent material has been brought on record that the petitioner has committed any such offence rather it is a counter-blast case against the case

¶15

-2-

¶16

lodged by the petitioner. He has further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 10.02.2021, as such, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶17

Learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant while opposing the prayer for regular bail has submitted that the petitioner is also not paying any amount for subsistence to her wife though he has committed cruelty against the wife, as such, petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.

¶18

Considering the rival submissions of the parties and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the period of custody of the petitioner i.e. from 10.02.2021, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶19

Accordingly, the petitioner above-named, is directed to be released on regular bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar, in connection with Latehar Mahila P.S. Case No. 14/2020 on the following conditions :-

¶20

(i) One of the bailors shall be deponent of the present petitioner, namely, Ram Kishor Sahu, S/o Budhram Sahu, R/o Hondaga, P.O. + P.S. Hondaga, DistrictLohardaga, Jharkhand.

¶21

Office is directed to send photocopy of the UID Card of deponent along with a copy of this order to the court below so as to verify the authenticity of the bailor/deponent .

¶22

(ii) Another bailor shall be close relatives of the petitioner .

¶23

(iii) The Jail Authority shall release the petitioner only after his medical check-up . (iv) The Civil Surgeon, Latehar, is directed to medically examine the petitioner at the time of his release and if requires, petitioner shall be taken for quarantine, but if no such requirement is there, he shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case .

¶24

(v) Petitioner shall also comply with all the guidelines issued by the Government so as to meet the challenges of Covid-19, as the country is passing through Pandemic of Covid-19 .

¶25

Sandeep/

¶26

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

Ashok Kumar Sao Alias Sahu v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Sao Alias Sahu 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

Mosmat Munni Devi And Anr. Vs National Insurance Co.Ltd. And O

Sandeep Vs the State of Jharkhand

Linus Kerketta Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sk Faquruddin Alias Rajesh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chunnu Sk Alias Chunnu Seikh Vs the State of Jharkhand