In an anticipatory bail application apprehending arrest in a dowry case, the High Court dismissed the prayer without expressing a view on merits due to the absence of a custodial trial requirement and directed surrender for regular bail.
Anticipatory bail dismissed; petitioner directed to surrender within four weeks for regular bail.
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.5677 of 2022
------
Bajrangi Ravidas .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Nisha Kumari .... .... ....Opposite Parties ------
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kr. Sah, Advocate For the State : Mr. Nawin Kr. Singh, Addl.P.P For the O.P. No.2 : None
------
Order No.08 Dated- 17.01.2023
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 136 of 2022 (T.R. No.78 of 2022) instituted under Sections 323, 498-A and 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of D.P. Act, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.
The notice has been validly served upon opposite party no.2 herself but no one turned up on behalf of the opposite party no.2.
It is alleged that the marriage of complainant was solemnized with petitioner in the year 2018 but after some time of marriage, petitioner along with family members started demanding Rs.50,000/cash as additional dowry from the complainant. Due to non-fulfillment of the aforesaid demand, the complainant was physically and mentally tortured and harassed at the hands of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is matrimonial dispute between the parties and the allegation of demanding additional dowry and torturing the complainant mentally and physically are entirely false and fabricated. Hence, petitioner may be extended privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
It appears that it is a complaint case and cognizance has been taken and only summons has been issued against the petitioner. There is no requirement for custodial trial of petitioner in this case. Hence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, this anticipatory bail application is disposed off.
Petitioner is directed to surrender before the court below within four weeks from the date of this order and seek regular bail which shall be disposed off on its own merits in accordance 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 .
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Pappu/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner apprehending arrest in a dowry case.
Whether custodial trial is required for the petitioner in this complaint case.
If bail is granted, whether directions for regular bail should be issued under Satender Kumar Antil guidelines.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.Referred¶15
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in 2021(10) SCC 773 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bajrangi Ravidas
The State of Jharkhand
Nisha Kumari
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
