Dismissed

Mumtaz Alam v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC26 Jul 2023A.B.A./2287/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner approached the High Court for anticipatory bail under Section 498-A IPC, alleging dowry harassment. The Court, noting a summons-based trial without custodial requirements, disposed of the application by directing the petitioner to appear before the issuing court for regular bail. Strict compliance with Supreme Court guidelines was mandated.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to appear before the court below for regular bail in compliance with Supreme Court guidelines in Satender Kumar Antil.

Mumtaz Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand — Matrimonial and Divorce | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.2287 of 2023

¶2

------

¶3

Mumtaz Alam .... .... …. Petitioner

¶4

Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Khushboo Khatun .... .... ....Opposite Parties

¶5

------

¶6

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶7

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Sajid Yunus, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tapas Ray, Addl.P.P For the O.P. No.2 : None

¶8

------

¶9

Order No.06 Dated- 26.07.2023

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

Apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 587 of 2022 instituted under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶12

The notice has been validly served upon opposite party no.2 but no one turned up on her behalf.

¶13

It is alleged that the marriage of complainant was solemnized with petitioner on 30.10.2018. After sometime of marriage, the petitioner along with other family members started demanding Rs.2 lakhs cash as additional dowry from the complainant. Due to non-fulfillment of which, the complainant was subjected to physical and mental cruelty at the hands of petitioner and eventually she was ousted from her matrimonial home.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is matrimonial discord between the parties and all the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and fabricated. Petitioner is still ready and willing to keep the complainant with full honor and dignity as his lawful wife. Petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the trial of the case. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶15

Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

¶16

It further appears that it is a complaint case and after cognizance, only summons has been issued against him. There is no requirement for custodial trial of the petitioner. Hence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, this anticipatory bail application is disposed off.

¶17

Petitioner is directed to appear before the court below and seek regular bail which shall be disposed off in strict compliance of 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 as well as recent observation of Hon’ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in 2023 LiveLaw(SC) 233.

¶18

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶19

Pappu/

Mumtaz Alam v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mumtaz Alam 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Azad Ansari Alias MD Azad Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Deepak Kumar Thakur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Hasina Bibi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ranjay Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajendra Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand