Amerun Begam Alias Sona Khatun Vs the State of Jharkhand

5. Farheen Khatun @ Farheen Khatoon, daughter of late Adul Rouf, both residents of Hill Basti, Raniganj, P.O and P.S. Bardhman, District Bardhman, West Bengal. . ...... Petitioner(s).

¶10

Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party(s).

¶11

------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. -----For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Advocate. For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. .P.P.

¶12

8/11.07.2025: This anticipatory bail application under Section(s) 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been preferred by the petitioners apprehending their arrest for the offences registered under Section(s) 498A, 341, 323, 313, 34 IPC and Section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶13

Heard the parties at length and had gone through the documents, annexed along with this application.

¶14

The petitioners are the in-laws of the victim. There is allegation in the FIR of demand of dowry and torturing the victim. It is alleged that rupees five lakh was demand as dowry and the petitioners have assaulted the victim. It is further alleged that the victim girl was carrying the pregnancy of three months and because of the assault, her pregnancy is terminated. The assault is made on 16.9.2023, but the instant case was filed on 16.12.2024.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation of assault is absolutely false and the termination of pregnancy is not due to the assault, but the reason which can be attributed to the victim herself, which is mentioned in the case diary. He further submits that the petitioners are in-laws, who will cooperate with the investigation.

¶16

Learned Spl. P.P referring to the report of the Doctor, which is in the case diary, submits that there is evidence of termination of pregnancy and it has been mentioned that the patient took MPT kit at home, which resulted in bleeding.

¶17

After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the medical report, which is in the case diary, I find that the doctor has opined that the patient

¶18

was admitted on 19.9.2023 on the complaint of bleeding from vagina, after the patient took MPT kit by herself at home. I further find that there is much delay in lodging the First Information Report.

¶19

Considering the aforesaid facts, I am inclined to allow this anticipatory bail application. Accordingly, the petitioners, above named, are directed to surrender before the court below within four weeks from today and in the event of their surrender/arrest, the court below is directed to enlarge them on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(rupees ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of J.M. Deoghar, in connection with Deoghar Mahila P.S. Case No. 16/2024, subject to condition that one of the bailers should be close relative of the petitioners and other should be a resident of State of Jharkhand, having sufficient landed property in his/her name or in the name of his/her ancestors in which he/she is having share and to that effect, he/she has to file an affidavit before the Trial Court indicating his/her share in the property.

¶20

Anu/-C.P.-3

Amerun Begam Alias Sona Khatun v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amerun Begam Alias Sona Khatun 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

Idrish Miya Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arjun Kumar Sahu Alias Arjun Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dilip Kumar Modak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Deepak Kumar Turi Alias Deepak Turi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Munna Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rejaul Ansari Alias Rejajul Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand