Disposed¶18

Ranjit Kumar Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC27 Aug 2024A.B.A./4485/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand HC anticipatory bail application disposed of; petitioner directed to seek regular bail per Satender Kumar Antil guidelines (2021 (10) SCC 773; 2023-LiveLaw (SC) 233); Sections 323/498A IPC; Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act; Complaint No. 481/2021; dowry demand Rs. 2 lacs; cognizance limited to petitioner; O.P. No. 2 absent despite notice served 03.07.2024.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail not granted; petitioner directed to appear and seek regular bail before the concerned Trial Court, whose disposal shall strictly follow the Satender Kumar Antil (Supreme Court) guidelines. ¶18

Ranjit Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioner Ranjit Kumar Das, who apprehends arrest in the case registered under Sections 323/498A IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (Complaint No. 481/2021).

¶13

Court's answer

Considering that it is primarily a case under Sections 323/498A IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and that there is no requirement of custodial trial of the petitioner, and without expressing any view on the merit of the case, this Court directed the petitioner to appear before and seek regular bail from the concerned Trial Court, whose disposal shall strictly comply with the Supreme Court guidelines in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2021 (10) SCC 773) and the observations in the 2023-LiveLaw (SC) 233 report.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The anticipatory bail application was disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction; anticipatory bail was not granted at this stage.

¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory Bail Application No. 4485 of 2023 (High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, Rajesh Shankar, J., 27.08.2024) of Ranjit Kumar Das, husband of complainant/O.P. No. 2, who apprehended arrest in a matter registered under Sections 323/498A IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act arising out of Complaint No. 481/2021 (alleged dowry demand of Rs. 2 lacs, a colour T.V. and a four-wheeler; alleged drunken assault of 16.12.2019; 'Panchayati' of 19.12.2019). Cognizance had been taken only against the petitioner, though his parents and brother were also arrayed. Without expressing any view on merits and noting that custodial trial was unnecessary, the Court disposed of the application, directing the petitioner to seek regular bail from the concerned Trial Court in strict compliance with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2021 (10) SCC 773; 2023-LiveLaw (SC) 233). Notice to O.P. No. 2 was validly served (order dated 03.07.2024) but she did not appear.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A. B. A. No. 4485 of 2023

¶3

Ranjit Kumar Das ….. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Anju Rani ….. Opposite Parties

¶7

----- CORAM

¶8

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶9

¶10

For the Petitioner: Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj For the State: Mr. Praful Jojo, A.P.P

¶11

¶12

06/27.08.2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

The petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with the case registered under Sections 323/498A IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶14

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 complaint. The petitioner is the husband of the complainant/the O.P.No.2. It has been alleged in the complaint that the petitioner and his family members demanded Rs.2 Lacs, one colour T.V and one four-wheeler vehicle as dowry from the complainant. It has also been alleged that on 16.12.2019, the petitioner came home in drunken condition, abused and assaulted the complainant. A ‘’Panchayati’’ was held on 19.12.2019 in which the petitioner accepted the said incident and swore before the ‘’Panches’’ not to repeat the said mistake. In fact, the petitioner has neither demanded any dowry from the complainant nor has tortured her for non-fulfilment of the same. Though the complainant arrayed the petitioner’s parents as well as his brother as accused in Complaint No. 481/2021, however, the concerned Court below took cognizance under Sections 323/498A IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act only against the petitioner. The petitioner also undertakes to cooperate in the trial. Hence, he may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶15

On perusal of the record, it appears that the notice issued to the O.P.No.2 was treated to be validly served vide order dated 03.07.2024. However, she has not chosen to appear in this case.

¶16

Learned A.P.P opposes the petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶17

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P for the State and considering that primarily it is a case under Sections 323/498A IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as well as that there is no requirement of custodial trial of the petitioner, without expressing any view on the merit of the present case, he is directed to appear and seek regular bail before the concerned Trial Court, which shall be disposed of by the said Court in strict compliance of the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in 2021 (10) SCC 773 as well as the observation made in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in 2023-LiveLaw (SC) 233.

¶18

The present anticipatory bail application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.

¶19

(RAJESH SHANKAR, J)

¶20

Satish/-

Ranjit Kumar Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjit Kumar Das 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

Cases cited

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