Disposed¶16

Jitendra Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC21 Aug 2024A.B.A./10781/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A.B.A. No.10781 of 2023, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, decided 21.08.2024 by Rajesh Shankar, J. — anticipatory bail refused to be entertained on merits; direction to seek regular bail per Satender Kumar Antil guidelines; offences under Ss.323/498A/494/506/34 IPC and Ss.3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act; Latehar Mahila P.S. Case No.6 of 2023; petitioner Jitendra Yadav; opposite party no.2/informant Anupama Devi.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application disposed of with direction to the petitioner to appear before the concerned court below and seek regular bail, to be dealt with in strict compliance of the guidelines in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2021) 10 SCC 773 and 2023 SCC OnLine SC 452; no view expressed on merits. ¶16

Jitendra Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.10781 of 2023

¶2

¶3

Jitendra Yadav .......... Petitioner.

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Anupama Devi

¶7

.......... Opp. Parties.

¶8

----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, A.P.P. For the O.P.No.2 : Mr. Shadab Eqbal, Advocate : Mr. Danish Shahbaz, Advocate -----

¶9

Order No.10 Date: 21.08.2024

¶10

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Latehar Mahila P.S. Case No.6 of 2023 registered under Sections 323/498A/494/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and have not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. The petitioner is husband of the informant/opposite party no.2. He has neither made any demand of dowry nor has tortured the informant for non-fulfilment of the same. Though, it has been alleged in the F.I.R. that the petitioner solemnized second marriage, however, there is no material to substantiate the said allegation. The petitioner is ready to keep the opposite party no.2 as his wife in the matrimonial home with full dignity and honour. Hence, he may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶12

Learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 oppose the petitioner’s prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the main offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Under the said circumstance, there is no requirement for custodial trial of the petitioner. Accordingly, without expressing any view on the merit of the case, the petitioner is directed to appear before the concerned court below and to seek regular bail which shall be disposed of by the said court in strict compliance of the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

¶14

Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773 and Satender Kumar

¶15

Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 452.

¶16