Dismissed¶16

Moti Kumar Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC27 Aug 2024A.B.A./3346/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Moti Kumar Das v. State of Jharkhand, A.B.A. No. 3346 of 2024, Jharkhand High Court, Rajesh Shankar J., decided 27.08.2024. Anticipatory bail rejected; Sections 304-B/34 IPC; Deori P.S. Case No. 61/2022; dowry death; dowry demand of Rs. 1 lac and motorcycle; torture of deceased wife; death by asphyxia due to hanging; witnesses' re-statements supporting prosecution; coordinate Bench bail to father-in-law and mother-in-law not extended to husband.

What did the court decide?

The Court weighed against the petitioner that he is the husband of the deceased and that there is a direct allegation against him of demanding dowry and torturing the deceased. ¶14

Moti Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A. B. A. No. 3346 of 2024

¶3

Moti Kumar Das ….. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party

¶6

----- CORAM

¶7

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶8

¶9

For the Petitioner: Mr. Rahul Dev For the State: Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, A.P.P

¶10

¶11

05/27.08.2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

The petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with the case registered under Sections 304-B/34 IPC has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. The petitioner is the husband of the deceased. At the time of the alleged occurrence on 06.05.2022, the petitioner was not even present at his home i.e. the place of occurrence. He neither harassed the deceased nor demanded any dowry from her. The father-in-law and the mother-in-law of the deceased have already been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court, order of which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the present anticipatory bail application. Hence, the petitioner may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶13

Learned A.P.P while opposing the petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail, submits that there is direct allegation against him that he demanded Rs.1 Lac and one motorcycle as dowry from the deceased and also tortured her for nonfulfilment of the same. Hence, he does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased, against whom there is direct allegation of demanding dowry and torturing the deceased, as well as keeping in

¶15

view that the cause of death of the deceased has been found to be asphyxia due to hanging and during investigation, the witnesses in their re-statements have supported the case of the prosecution, I am not inclined to enlarge him on anticipatory bail in connection with Deori P.S. Case No. 61/2022.

¶16

The petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail is accordingly rejected.

¶17

(RAJESH SHANKAR, J)

¶18

Satish/-

Moti Kumar Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moti Kumar Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Asif Vs State of Jharkhand

Ms Anjaneya Ispat Ltd. through Its Directors Ajit Singh and Ors. Vs Bank of Baroda through Its Authorized Officer

Ms Geeta Weigh Bridge through Its Partner Sri Ashish Agarwal Vs State of Jharkhand

Rabi Lal Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manish Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chandan Das Vs State of Jharkhand