Sanjay Choudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2024)

Sanjay Choudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail not granted; petitioner directed to appear before the concerned court below and seek regular bail, the disposal of which shall comply strictly with the Satender Kumar Antil guidelines; court expressed no view on the merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioner Sanjay Choudhary @ Rudra Choudhary, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Pathargama P.S. Case No. 101 of 2023. +1 more

Court's answer

Anticipatory bail was not granted; instead, without expressing any view on the merits, the petitioner was directed to appear before the concerned court below and seek regular bail.

Ratio / Principle

There is no requirement for custodial trial of the petitioner, as the main offences alleged against him are under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Key takeaways

The petitioner's regular bail application before the court below shall be disposed of in strict compliance with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773 and 2023 SCC OnLine SC 452.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

A.B.A. No.10874 of 2023 (High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi), Order No.08 dated 21.08.2024, Rajesh Shankar, J. — Sanjay Choudhary @ Rudra Choudhary, apprehending arrest in Pathargama P.S. Case No.101 of 2023 (registered under Sections 498(A)/354(B)/34 IPC, Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Sections 3/4 Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 2001-Jharkhand), applied for anticipatory bail against the State of Jharkhand and O.P. No.2 Lesu Kumari. His family members (co-accused) had already obtained anticipatory bail (A.B.P. No.697 of 2023, Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Godda, 27.09.2023). Hearing all sides, the court found the main offence alleged to be under Section 498A I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and held that there was no requirement for custodial trial of the petitioner. Without expressing any view on the merits, the court did not grant anticipatory bail but directed the petitioner to appear before the concerned court below and seek regular bail, the disposal of which was ordered to be in strict compliance with the Supreme Court guidelines laid down in Satender Kumar Antil vs CBI & Anr., reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773 and 2023 SCC OnLine SC 452. Application disposed of accordingly.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.10874 of 2023

Sanjay Choudhary @ Rudra Choudhary

.......... Petitioner.

-Versus-

The State of Jharkhand 2. Lesu Kumari

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

----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----For the Petitioner : Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, A.P.P. For the O.P.No.2 : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate ----- Order No.08 Date: 21.08.2024

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Pathargama P.S. Case No.101 of 2023 registered under Sections 498(A)/354(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Sections 3/4 of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 2001-Jharkhand.

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 complaint leading to lodging of the present F.I.R. The allegation made in the complaint is false and concocted. The petitioner has neither demanded any dowry nor has tortured the opposite party no.2 for non-fulfilment of the same. Even on perusal of the allegation made in the complaint, it would be evident that at best the offences under Section 498(A) of the I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are made out against the petitioner (though the petitioner has been denying the marriage with the opposite party no.2). So far as the rest accused persons (family

members of the petitioner) are concerned, they have already been granted anticipatory bail being A.B.P. No.697 of 2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Godda vide impugned order dated 27^th September, 2023 itself. Hence, the petitioner may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

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.

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

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

Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in

2023 SCC OnLine SC 452.

The present anticipatory bail application is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

Arpit/

-2-

A.B.A. No.10874 of 2023