Allowed

Sonu Kumar Bhagat v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC7 Dec 2022A.B.A./3441/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand allowed the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 498A and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, releasing him on a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of like amount, subject to conditions of cooperation and appearance.

Sonu Kumar Bhagat Vs the State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A. B. A. No. 3441 of 2022

¶3

Sonu Kumar Bhagat . .... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand. 2.Khushboo Kumari .. ... ...Opp. Party(s)

¶4

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶5

......... For the Petitioner : Mr. M. B. Lal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, APP For the Informant : Mr. Z. Ahmad, Advocate

¶6

07/ 07.12.2022 . Apprehending his arrest, petitioner above-named has moved this Court for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Dhanbad Mahila P.S. Case No.06 of 2022 registered under Sections 498(A)/ 323/ 342/ 504/ 506/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 /4 of D. P. Act.

¶7

Heard the parties.

¶8

As per the prosecution case, the marriage was solemnized in the year 2019 and thereafter the informant was subjected to cruelty in reference to unlawful demand of Rs.3 Lakhs.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged.The informant was suffering from mental disease and by supressing this fact, her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner.The Matrimonial Suit for dissolution of marriage was filed, the instant case has been filed. It is submitted that general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the entire family, but no date of assault or harassment has been stated. The informant had sustained head injury before the marriage and for which her treatment was being made in the Hospital at Ranchi.

¶10

Learned APP for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel and the fact as discussed above, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. Hence, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of two weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner named above shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties

¶12

-2-

¶13

of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court below, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr. P.C.

¶14

The petitioner will co-operate in the investigation and will appear on notice under Section 41 A of Cr.P.C. and comply with the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

¶15

( Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. )

¶16

Sandeep/

Sonu Kumar Bhagat v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Kumar Bhagat 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

Rajmata Sumidha Raj Laxmi Devi Vs Haribansh Kr Singh Az Harbansh Singh

Nandkishore Dudhani Vs Kaluram Dudhani

Amrendra Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Sharan Prasad Vs Shyam Saran Prasad

Sanjay Kumar Verma Alias Sanjay Kr Nunamain Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bodhan Ruidas Vs the State of Jharkhand