This order grants anticipatory bail to three petitioners including a son and wife in a dowry harassment case, rejecting the prayer for the father-in-law due to specific allegations of torture.
Prayer for anticipatory bail granted to Petitioners 2, 3, and 4; prayer for Petitioner 1 (father-in-law) rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.13562 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -202 Year- 2016 Thana -MADHEPURA COMPALINT CASE District-
MADHEPURA
======================================================
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madhuranand Jha
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER
In this application for anticipatory bail the petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 202 of 2016 for the offences punishable under sections 323, 341, 498 (A) and 504/34 of the I.P.C.
The complainant has filed this case under sections 498 (A) and other allied sections of the I.P.C and the Dowry Prohibition Act against the father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13562 of 2017 (3) dt.19-06-2017
2/3
in-law and the sister-in-law and not against her husband alleging that the father-in-law wants to develop illicit relationship with her and after giving birth of two child they are demanding dowry by way of one she-buffalo and cash of Rs. 50,000/-.
Submission is of false implication and that there is dispute of share and for that the complaint has filed this false case, no offence as alleged is made out against the petitioners, against mother-in-law, brother-in-law and the sister-in-law there is no specific allegation and as such the petitioners deserve sympathetic consideration, the allegation leveled against the father-in-law is not true and is derogatory.
The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand opposes prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioners by submitting that the petitioners are torturing the complainant for non fulfillment of demand of dowry.
In the facts and circumstances as stated above, considering the allegation against petitioner no.1, Hirday Rajak, the father-in-law, I am not inclined to grant privilege of pre-arrest bail to him and accordingly his such prayer stands rejected.
But considering that against the rest petitioners there is no specific allegation and as such petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4, in case of their arrest or surrender within four weeks from the date of
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13562 of 2017 (3) dt.19-06-2017
3/3
receipt/production of a copy of this order shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of. A.C.J.M-IV, Madhepura in connection with above mentioned case, subject to the conditions as laid down in section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J)
Abhay/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in a complaint case alleging offences under sections 323, 341, 498(A), and 504 IPC.
Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted to the father-in-law who faced specific allegations of torture and dowry demands.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Hirday Rajak and Others
The State of Bihar
Punam Devi
Jitendra Mohan Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
