Dismissed¶14

Irfan Sheikh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC21 Mar 2024A.B.A./4532/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court; anticipatory bail rejected; Section 304B read with Section 34 IPC dowry death; Radhanagar P.S. Case No. 178 of 2021; strangulation death on 08.03.2021; additional dowry demand of motorcycle; Rs.1.25 lakhs cash and Rs.50,000/- articles at marriage; serious and heinous nature of offence; no criminal antecedents plea; single judge Pradeep Kumar Srivastava; decision dated 21.03.2024.

What did the court decide?

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the serious and heinous nature of the offence alleged, and the materials showing the petitioner's involvement in the commission of the dowry death of the deceased wife, the Court was not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. ¶14

Irfan Sheikh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.4532 of 2023

------

Versus

------

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶6

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Addl.P.P ------

¶7

Order No.04 Dated- 21.03.2024

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

Apprehending his arrest in connection with Radhanagar P.S. Case No. 178 of 2021 instituted under Sections 304 B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶10

As per FIR, allegation is that the informant’s sister was married with the petitioner about one and half year ago as per Muslim customs and rituals and at the time of marriage, Rs.1.25 lakhs cash and other domestic articles worth Rs.50,000/- were presented to the petitioner. It is further alleged that the informant’s sister informed him and family members that her in-laws are demanding additional dowry in shape of motorcycle and due to nonfulfillment of the said demand, she is subjected to cruelty. A Panchyati was conveyed for their happy marriage life and the informant’s sister was again sent to her matrimonial home where petitioner along with other family members assaulted his sister and drag out her from matrimonial home. After settlement, she was again sent to her matrimonial home. On 08.03.2021 at about 11:00 am, the informant was informed by some villagers that his sister has died at her matrimonial home and when the informant reached to her matrimonial home, he found the sister’s body was lying on a cot, she was killed by strangulation.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of suspicion. All the allegations levelled against the petitioner of demand of dowry and consequent torture meted to the deceased are absolutely false

¶12

and fabricated story. It is further submitted that during the period of demand of dowry and cruelty meted out with the deceased as alleged in the FIR, no complain or FIR was lodged by the informant party against the petitioner and others. Petitioner has no criminal antecedents and no specific overt act has been attributed against the petitioner. Petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case and shall abide by all the terms and conditions which may be imposed by the court. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶13

Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of committing dowry death of the deceased. Hence, petitioner may not be extended privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the serious and heinous nature of offence alleged to be committed by the petitioner and materials showing involvement of petitioner in commission of dowry death of the deceased wife, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer of anticipatory bail of petitioner is rejected.

¶15

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶16

Pappu/

Irfan Sheikh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irfan Sheikh 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

Rahman Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Naju Sk Alias Nazu Sk Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Mumtaz Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ketabul Sk Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jitendra Kumar Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

Munna Khan Vs The State Of Jharkhand