Allowed

Rahul Kumar Nonia v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC1 Jul 2024A.B.A./408/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought by husband apprehending arrest in a case under IPC, Dowry Prohibition Act and POCSO arising from allegations of dowry demand and torture after marriage. The State conceded no injury was caused to the informant. Bail granted on surrender with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; surrender within two weeks, bail bond Rs. 25,000 with two sureties, subject to Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. conditions.

Rahul Kumar Nonia Vs the State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 408 of 2024

¶2

Rahul Kumar Nonia … Petitioner

¶3

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

¶4

¶5

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶6

----For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate ---

¶7

06/01.07.2024

¶8

Heard the Parties.

¶9

Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Khalari P.S. Case No. 62 of 2023, for the offences registered under Sections 341, 323, 376, 315, 498A, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Sections 4 &6 of the POCSO Act. However, chargesheet has been submitted under Sections 341, 323, 376, 498A, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and Sections 4 &6 of the POCSO Act, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, POCSO, Ranchi.

¶10

The marriage between the petitioner and informant was result of their love affair. It is alleged that after marriage there was demand of dowry and she was tortured to enforce the demand of dowry and ultimately she was driven away from her matrimonial home.

¶11

Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the informant has not sustained any injury at the hands of the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned A.P.P. assisted by Mr. Rishu Ranjan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It was submitted that at the time of their love affair, victim was about 17 years and when she became major, marriage was solemnized.

¶13

Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned A.P.P. does not dispute the fact that victim has not sustained any injury at the hands of the petitioner.

¶14

Considering the aforesaid facts, I am inclined to extend the privilege of Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner. He is directed to surrender before the court below within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order, and in the event of his arrest or surrender he shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, POCSO, Ranchi in connection with Khalari P.S. Case No. 62 of 2023, Subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

¶15

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

¶16

Jay/-

Rahul Kumar Nonia v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Kumar Nonia 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

Suresh Chand Rav Alias Suresh Chandra Rao Alias Suresh Rav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rita Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shekh Hemja Vs the State of Jharkhand

Asha Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Deepak Kumar Alias Mishu Yadav Alias Mishu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Murli Kushwaha Alias Murli Prasad Kushwaha Vs the State of Jharkhand