Anticipatory bail granted for a complaint case involving allegations of torture due to non-fulfilment of dowry demand. Bail allowed on personal bond to be converted to sureties after normalcy.
Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond to be rendered on sureties after normalcy, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC.
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.8637 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1651 Year-2018 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Jamui
======================================================
Baudhu Yadav Son of Gurudeo Yadav Resident of Village -Bhandra, P.S.Barhat, District- Jamui.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mukul Jee, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.A.G. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER
2 22-06-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State through virtual mode.
Counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, within a period of four weeks from the date of restoration of normalcy.
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Allegation against the petitioner is of committing torture upon the victim due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8637 of 2021(2) dt.22-06-2021 2/3
there is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. On the earlier occasion also, a case was instituted for similar offence by the complainant against the petitioner and his family members. The case is triable by the Magistrate. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Md. Naimul Haque Ansari @ Naimul Haque Ansari & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2006(3) PLJR 182.
On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is named in the complaint case/F.I.R.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the lockdown, the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of twelve weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on his personal bond to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Jamui in connection with Complaint case No.1651C of 2018, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Once the normalcy is restored, the petitioner shall furnish bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each within a period of eight weeks to the satisfaction of the court concerned in connection
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8637 of 2021(2) dt.22-06-2021 3/3
with the aforesaid case.
If so advised, either of the parties will be at liberty to make an application before the Court below for referring the matter to the District Mediation Centre for the purpose of reconciliation or one time settlement. In case, any such application is made by either of the parties, the court below shall refer the matter to the District Mediation Centre.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
Narendra/-
U T
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with the complaint case registered under Section 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act.
Whether the petitioner apprehends arrest due to dowry demand allegations.
What conditions should be imposed for the grant of anticipatory bail during the lockdown period.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Md. Naimul Haque Ansari @ Naimul Haque Ansari & Ors. Vs. The State of BiharReferred¶18
2006(3) PLJR 182
3 provisions across 3 enactments
BAUDHU YADAV
THE STATE OF BIHAR
RUBI DEVI
SUDHIR SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
