Nakul Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

07/18.09.2024 Heard Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, learned A.P.P assisted by Mr. Mrityunjay Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2.

¶11

The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected in A.B.A. No. 1395 of 2015.

¶12

It appears that the petitioner had preferred an application for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in Cr.M.P. No. 2080 of 2015 wherein an interim order was passed on 14.10.2015, but finally the said application was dismissed by this Court on 09.05.2024.

¶13

Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the informant, right from the time of her marriage, is staying at her matrimonial house in the district of Giridih but the petitioner stays in the district of Dhanbad where he has a business of plying Hiva.

¶14

Mr. Mrityunjay Choudhary, learned counsel for the informant has admitted to the fact that the informant stays at her matrimonial house even now but, at the same time, he has submitted that the order of maintenance passed by the learned court below has not been complied by the petitioner as an amount of almost Rs. 7 lakhs towards arrears of maintenance are still due.

¶15

To this Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has already made payment of an amount of Rs. 3,36,000/- towards maintenance and he is ready to deposit an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs within a period of four weeks in the account of the informant and he has further assured that regular maintenance amount shall be paid to the informant by the petitioner in terms of the order passed by the learned court below.

¶16

The petitioner is an accused in connection with Jamua P.S. Case No. 06 of 2015 instituted for the offences punishable under Section 498(A), 323, 504, 506/34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶17

As has been jointly stated by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as opposite party no. 2, the informant is continuing to reside at her matrimonial house right from the time of her marriage. Moreover, since the proposal put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to the deposit of arrears of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 3 lakhs and the regular payment of monthly maintenance as ordered by the learned court has been accepted by the learned counsel for the informant, I am inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The petitioner, accordingly, is directed to surrender before the learned court below within a period of four weeks from today and on his surrender, if he shows a proof that an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs has already been paid to the informant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Giridih in connection with Jamua P.S. Case No. 06 of 2015, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶18

This application stands allowed.

¶19

( Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶20

Preet/-

¶21

-2-

Nakul Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nakul Yadav 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

Rakesh Kumar Garg Vs the State of Jharkhand

Md. Amjad Ali Alias Amjad Ali Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mukesh Mahato Alias Mukesh Kumar Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand

Danial Hansda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashish Kumar Alias Aashish Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Naseem Pawariya Alias Sonu Pawariya Alias Naseem Ahmad Vs the State of Jharkhand