Sashi Ranjan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2099 of 2024

Sashi Ranjan Singh, aged about 32 years, son of Satendar Singh @ Satyendra Singh, Resident of Chanchani Colliery, P.O. and P.S. Andal, District. Paschim Burdwan, State – West Bengal ..… Petitioner

¶3

Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party

¶4

¶5

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

¶6

--------For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, APP For the Informant : Mr. Kumar Pawan, Advocate

¶7

07/ 16^th October, 2024

¶8

Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Bokaro Sector-4 P.S. Case No. 120 of 2023 for the offences registered under Sections 406, 420, 376 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code & under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Bokaro.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset, submitted that it is the informant who herself took initiative to break the marriage and later on when legal notice dated 01.08.2023was sent by the mother and father of this petitioner to informant’s parent, then it was responded and contended in the said reply dated 16.08.2023 that she was buying sometime to know each other. Learned counsel for the petitioner conveyed this Court that Rs. 8,00,000/which was taken at the time of sagai was returned back to mother of the informant through DD and copy of receiving and DD dated 05.01.2024 is already placed on record. He further pointed out that as far as allegation of alleged forceful physical relation by the petitioner is concerned, he submitted it is fabricated and manufactured story, as this fact was not brought at the first instance on behalf of informant in its reply dated 16.08.2023 as such, this fact can’t be believe by any stretch of imagination. He further pointed out that, simply its a case of two different sex come in contact through matrimonial website and this relationship further proceeded which resulted into sagai and thereafter on denial of one side i.e. informant marriage was cancelled. To show the bonafide on the part of petitioner, it is submitted that petitioner side had also purchased jewellery and other items for informant, which reveals that petitioner

¶10

side were intending to get the marriage done with informant. Lastly, submission has been made that no purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bar and he shall join the investigation as and when required and he is also having clean antecedent & long career to go.

¶11

Learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail on the premise that since very inception, petitioner was not intending to enter into marriage with the informant and he ravished informant on the pretext of marriage and cash amount and other articles taken by the petitioner side has not been returned, as such, petitioner does not deserve any leniency by this Court.

¶12

Perusal of record transpires that petitioner and informant came in contact with each other through matrimonial site and copy of the text message available on record reveals that they were in contact with each other. It is alleged by informant that specific demand of dowry was made from petitioner side. It further transpires that sagai took place between petitioner and informant on 20.06.2023, however, this sagai could not be culminated into marriage and petitioner side and informant side are blaming each other for the same. It is further alleged that after sagai petitioner side and informant side stayed in the night at marriage hall & in the morning of 21.06.2023, when informant went in the room of this petitioner, petitioner made physical relation with her as per restatement of informant but as per para 48 of the case diary informant in her 164 Cr.P.C., stated alleged act of petitioner in the night of 20.06.2023 itself. Informant has also stated that petitioner is in her relation. As far as, return of Rs.8,00,000/- by petitioner side is concerned, it has not been disputed. This Court carefully gone through the content of legal notice dated 01.08.2023 by which parent of this petitioner communicated the parent of informant regarding breaking of the marriage. Response on behalf of parent of informant reveals that as far as alleged forceful physical relation by petitioner is concerned, this fact has not been mentioned in the reply dated 16.08.2023 (in response to notice dated 01.08.2023 of parent of petitioner).

¶13

This Court has gone through the case diary available on record and also gone through the statement of informant/victim available on record. It is not in dispute that petitioner as well as informant have already attained the age of giving consent at the time of alleged incident. Alleged incident as narrated by

¶14

victim is in the night of day of sagai itself. This Court find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the basis of totality of above-stated facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶15

Accordingly, petitioner, above named, is directed to surrender before the learned Court below within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the learned court below on his surrender, shall release him on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Bokaro in connection with Bokaro Sector-4 P.S. Case No. 120 of 2023 subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶16

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶17

Rajnish

Sashi Ranjan Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sashi Ranjan Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dipu Mochi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Munna Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Om Prakash Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dharam Das Sah Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manoj Saw Alias Nepali Saw Alias Manoj Kumar Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dineshwar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand