Allowed¶18

Mithilesh Kumar Jaiswal v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC14 Oct 2024A.B.A./2761/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail allowed; matrimonial dispute between husband and wife; parties cohabiting since 31.07.2024 per service report; Lalmatia P.S. Case No. 31 of 2023; IPC Ss. 341, 323, 498A, 504, 506/34; Dowry Prohibition Act Ss. 3/4; surrender within four weeks; bail bond Rs. 25,000 with two like sureties; JMFC 1st Class, Godda; conditions under S. 438(2) CrPC; High Court of Jharkhand; Justice Arun Kumar Rai; A.B.A. No. 2761 of 2024.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail: petitioner to surrender within four weeks; upon arrest or surrender, to be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Godda in connection with Lalmatia P.S. Case No. 31 of 2023, subject to Section 438(2) CrPC conditions. ¶18

Mithilesh Kumar Jaiswal Vs the State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Lalmatia P.S. Case No. 31 of 2023, is entitled to anticipatory bail.

¶14

Court's answer

Since the matter is a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner-husband and the informant/opposite party no. 2 (wife), who had started residing together under the same roof, the Court found it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is directed to surrender in the court within four weeks; in the event of his arrest or surrender, he is to be enlarged on bail.

¶18

Key takeaways

Bail is to be on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Godda in connection with Lalmatia P.S. Case No. 31 of 2023, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail granted (A.B.A. No. 2761 of 2024, decided 14.10.2024 by Arun Kumar Rai, J.) in a matrimonial dispute arising out of Lalmatia P.S. Case No. 31 of 2023 registered under Sections 341, 323, 498A, 504, 506/34 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The service report recorded that the informant-wife had been residing with the petitioner-husband since 31.07.2024. Finding it a fit case on account of the reconciliation and cohabitation, the Court directed the petitioner to surrender within four weeks, with enlargement on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Godda, subject to the conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC.

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2761 of 2024

¶2

-----

¶3

Mithilesh Kumar Jaiswal aged about 31 years, S/o Late Dilip Kumar Jaiswal, Resident of Village – Khairbanni, P.O.+P.S. – Lalmatia, District – Godda

¶4

… … … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Lalita Devi W/o Mithilesh Kumar Jaiswal, present Address – presently residing at her parental house at Village – Chhota Khadhara, P.O.+P.S. Lalmatia, District – Godda, Jharkhand, permanent Address – at Village – Khairbanni, P.O.+P.S. – Lalmatia, District – Godda

¶8

… … … Opp. Parties

¶9

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

¶11

------For the Petitioner : Mr. S.P. Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, A.P.P. ------

¶12

Order No. 07 / Dated 14^th October, 2024

¶13

Heard Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and, Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶14

Apprehending his arrest in connection with Lalmatia P.S. Case No. 31 of 2023, instituted under Sections 341, 323, 498A, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, the petitioner has moved to this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶15

Perusal of service report transpires that opposite party no. 2/informant-wife started residing with this petitioner-husband for last one month (since 31.07.2024).

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per his instruction, informant-wife is residing with petitioner-husband under the same roof. He further pointed out that it was matrimonial dispute between the parties and as they have started residing together, anticipatory bail be granted to petitioner.

¶17

Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State submitted that appropriate order be passed.

¶18

Considering the fact that it is a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner-husband and informant/opposite party no. 2/wife and it has been stated that both of them started residing together under the same roof. This Court finds it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and accordingly, the petitioner, above named, is directed to surrender in the court within four weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrender, he will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Godda in connection with Lalmatia P.S. Case No. 31 of 2023 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶19

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶20

Umesh/-

Mithilesh Kumar Jaiswal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithilesh Kumar Jaiswal 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

Deepak Kumar Mandal Alias Deepak Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Johra Begam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Golu Kumar Paswan Alias Nitish Kumar Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Krishna Murari Tirky Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shiblal Bauri Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rustam Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand