Disposed

Jai Kumar Alias Jeet Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC22 Mar 2024B.A./9184/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory/regular bail confirmation in a matrimonial dispute involving allegations of dowry torture. The petitioner had been jailed about two and a half months and charge-sheet was filed; mediation failed. The court confirmed the earlier provisional bail, subject to cooperation with the trial.

What did the court decide?

Provisional bail granted by order dated 29.09.2022 confirmed, subject to petitioner's cooperation in the criminal proceeding.

Jai Kumar Alias Jeet Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9184 of 2022

¶2

Jai Kumar @ Jeet Kumar --- --- Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

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

¶5

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

¶6

For the Petitioner : Mr. Lal Vikram Nath Shahdeo, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. For the Victim-wife : Mr. Zeeshan Ahmad Khan, Advocate Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, Advocate

¶7

12/22.03.2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. assisted by the learned counsel appearing for the victim-wife.

¶8

Petitioner (Jai Kumar @ Jeet Kumar) is an accused in connection with Dhansar P.S. Case No. 172 of 2021 for the offence registered under Section 498A, 323, 341,363,34 of the IPC and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Dhanbad.

¶9

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it is a case of matrimonial dispute between the parties and this petitioner has already remained in jail from 20.07.2022 for about 2 ½ months and charge-sheet in this case has been submitted and, therefore, there is remote possibility of tampering with the evidence. Further, it has been submitted that the matter was sent to the Mediation Centre, JHALSA for resolving the dispute amicably between the parties through the process of mediation but unfortunately the dispute could not be resolved. Although, petitioner is ready for resolving the dispute amicably between the parties taking into consideration that it is a matrimonial dispute between them during pending of this criminal proceeding in the court below and therefore, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that let the provisional bail granted to the petitioner be confirmed.

¶10

On the other hand, the learned Spl.P.P. assisted by the learned counsel for the victim- wife has opposed the contentions raised by the petitioner and submitted that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution that the wife was subjected to torture and cruelty for want of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry including a Maruti car. Further it has also been pointed out on behalf of the wife that petitioner being an army personnel was not participating in the process of mediation and therefore the matter could not be resolved and therefore

¶11

-2-

¶12

this petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Having heard the parties, perused the record of the case including the case diary.

¶14

In the light of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, it is found just and fair to confirm the provisional bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 29.09.2022 by this Court. Accordingly, the provisional bail granted to the petitioner is confirmed, subject to further condition that petitioner will cooperate in the criminal proceeding pending in the court below, failing which, appropriate order shall be passed by the learned court below for cancellation of bail.

¶15

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

¶16

A.Mohanty

Jai Kumar Alias Jeet Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Kumar Alias Jeet Kumar 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

Kamdeo Prasad Ray Vs Chairman Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank

M/S Christian Mica Industries Limited through Its Authrorized Reprr Mr Suresh Kumar Hariaika Vs the State of Bihar ( Now State of Jharkhand)

Masomat Shanti Devi Vs Narayan Yadav

Abrar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manish Kumar Gupta Alias Manish Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kuje Gope Alias Motoa Gope Alias Mota Gope Alias Vishal Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand