Allowed

Dilip Ohdar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC13 Sept 2024A.B.A./1464/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband apprehending arrest in Mahila P.S. Case No. 1 of 2024 for dowry torture and ouster of his wife sought anticipatory bail. The court found allegations general and omnibus and granted anticipatory bail with conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail on surrender within four weeks; bail bond Rs. 10,000 with two like sureties, subject to S. 438(2) CrPC conditions.

Dilip Ohdar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A. B. A. No. 1464 of 2024

¶3

¶4

Dilip Ohdar s/o Sri Kameshwar Ohdar R/o C/o Sri Amar Keshri, Village Lowadih, PO & PS Namkum, District Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶5

… … Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Divya Kumari W/o Dilip Ohdar, D/o Sri Pramod Ram Kansi, R/o Village Jakjor, PO & PS Basiya, District Gumla, Jharkhand

¶9

… … Opposite Parties

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶11

¶12

For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijayant Verma, Advocate For the Opposite Party no. 1 : Mr. V. S. Sahay, A.P.P. For the Opposite Party no. 2 : Mrs. Pragati Prasad, Advocate

¶13

¶14

8/13.09.2024 Heard Mr. Vijayant Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V. S. Sahay, learned A.P.P. for the State as well as Mrs. Pragati Prasad, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

¶15

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 1 of 2024.

¶16

It has been alleged that after the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the opposite party no. 2, she was subjected to torture and demand of dowry by all the accused persons and ultimately, she was ousted from her matrimonial house.

¶17

Submissions have been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 had remained together for about 7 years after which the case was instituted. He has further submitted that the allegations are general and omnibus in nature.

¶18

Learned A.P.P. for the State as well as the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

¶19

Regard being had to the nature of allegations as the same are general and omnibus, I am inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶20

-2-

¶21

Accordingly, the petitioner above named is directed to surrender in the court below within four weeks and pray for bail, and in that event, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Gumla in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 1 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶22

This application stands allowed.

¶23

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

¶24

R. Shekhar Cp 3

Dilip Ohdar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Ohdar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jogendra Tiwari Vs Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement

Diwakar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

T Raghav Rao Vs the State of Jharkhand

Triveni Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Santosh Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Karim Ansari Alias Md. Karim Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand