Rohit Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2024)

Rohit Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail granted: petitioner directed to surrender before the court below within four weeks and, in the event of arrest or surrender, to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M. 1st Class, Hazaribag in connection with Mahila & Child Protection (Barhi) P.S. Case No. 17 of 2022, conditioned on cooperation with investigation, appearance before the investigating officer as and when noticed, furnishing mobile number and Aadhar Card photocopy with undertaking not to change the mobile number during pendency, and subject to Section 438(2) CrPC conditions.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, apprehending arrest in Mahila & Child Protection (Barhi) P.S. Case No. 17 of 2022 under Sections 341, 323, 379, 498-A, 504, 506 and 34 IPC, is entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Ratio / Principle

Considering the facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations and materials on record, the Court extended the privilege of anticipatory bail: the petitioner is to surrender before the court below within four weeks and, on arrest or surrender, be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M. 1st Class, Hazaribag, with conditions that he cooperate with the investigation, appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed, furnish his mobile number and photocopy of Aadhar Card with an undertaking not to change his mobile number during the pendency of the case, and subject to the conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory Bail — High Court of Jharkhand grants pre-arrest bail to the petitioner (husband) apprehending arrest in Mahila & Child Protection (Barhi) P.S. Case No. 17 of 2022 instituted under Sections 341, 323, 379, 498-A, 504, 506 and 34 IPC, arising from the wife's FIR alleging dowry articles (Rs.5 lakhs cash, motorcycle, gold ornaments) at the 2022 marriage and subsequent torture for insufficient dowry; petitioner had complied with notice under Section 41(A) CrPC and undertook to cooperate with investigation. Direction to surrender within four weeks and be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with two like sureties to the satisfaction of J.M. 1st Class, Hazaribag, subject to conditions of cooperation with investigation, appearance before the IO as noticed, furnishing mobile number and Aadhar Card copy with undertaking not to change the number, and Section 438(2) CrPC conditions.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.2516 of 2023

------

Rohit Kumar .... .... …. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand 2. Punam Kumari .... .... ....Opposite Parties

------

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanat Kumr Jha, Addl.P.P For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Adv.

------

Order No.06 Dated- 07.03.2024

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Apprehending his arrest in connection with Mahila & Child Protection (Barhi) P.S. Case No. 17 of 2022 instituted under Sections 341, 323, 379, 498-A, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.

As per FIR, allegation is that the informant was married with petitioner in the year 2022 and at the time marriage Rs.5 lakhs cash, one motorcycle, golden ring, one gold necklace and other articles were given. After two months of marriage, present petitioner along with others started torturing to the informant due to insufficient dowry.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case due to matrimonial dispute between the parties. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner and all the allegations of demand of dowry and subsequent torture meted out to her are entirely false and fabricated. Petitioner has complied with the notice under section 41(A) of Cr.P.C and he further undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State assisted by learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there are direct

and specific allegations against the petitioner as alleged in the FIR. Hence, petitioner may not be extended privilege of anticipatory bail. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of allegation against petitioner coupled with materials available on record, I am inclined to extend privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the Court below within four weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrendering, he will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M.1^st Class, Hazaribag in connection with Mahila & Child Protection (Barhi) P.S. Case No. 17 of 2022 with the condition that he will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the pendency of the case and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Pappu/