Petitioner applied for anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in a dowry case. Court disposed of application without expressing views on merits as custodial trial not necessary and directed seeking regular bail.
Application disposed of; petitioner directed to seek regular bail from trial court.
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. 1583 of 2023
------
Ashish Gupta .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand .... .... 2. Ananya Ghosh ....Opposite Parties ------
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
-----For the Petitioner : Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, Addl.P.P For the O. P. No. 2 : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate
------
Order No. 06 Dated- 12.07.2023
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Apprehending his arrest in connection with Dhalbhumgarh P. S. Case No. 45 of 2022 instituted under Sections 406/498(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 /4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.
As per the complaint petition, the complainant had solemnized marriage with the petitioner on 14.05.2021 and after some days of marriage, the accused persons started putting pressure for Rs. 5,00,000/as additional dowry and due to non-fulfilment of the said demand, all the accused persons started to torture physically and mentally.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that petitioners undertake to co-operate with the trial of the case and will not indulge in tampering with prosecution evidence and will abide by all terms and conditions imposed by this Court in the matter of granting anticipatory bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl.P.P. as well as learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
It appears that the petitioner has complied the notice issued under Section 41(A) CrPC and the investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has been submitted. There is no necessity of custodial trial of the petitioner . Hence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, this anticipatory bail application is disposed off. Petitioner is directed to seek regular bail before learned trial Court
-2-
which shall be disposed off on its own merits in strict compliance with the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in 2021(10) SCC 773.
Learned trial court is also directed to take notice of fresh observation of Hon’ble Apex Court in the Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in 2023 SCC Online (SC) 452 & 2023 Live Law (SC) 233.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Umesh/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving offence under Sections 406/498(A)/34 IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.Relied on¶15
2021(10) SCC 773 · Who else cites this
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.Relied on¶16
2023 SCC Online (SC) 452 & 2023 Live Law (SC) 233 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Ashish Gupta
The State of Jharkhand
Ananya Ghosh
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
