Jharkhand High Court
Pradeep Patar @ Pradeep Kumar Patar @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 May, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 JHA 608
Author: Shree Chandrashekhar
Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A. B. A. No. 469 of 2020
---
Pradeep Patar @ Pradeep Kumar Patar @ Pardeep Patar, son of Gouripada Patar, resident of Vill-Terenga, PO&PS-Kendadih, District-East Singhbhum .... ...... Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Jhuma Patar, resident of Vill-Terenga, Jadugoda, PO-Kendadih, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand .... ...... Opp. Parties
---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohan Kashyap, Adv.
For the State : Ms. Leena Mukherjee, APP
---
04/20.05.2020 Hearing of this anticipatory bail application has been
convened and conducted through Video-Conferencing.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection to Jadugora P.S. Case No.68 of 2019 which has been instituted at the instance of his wife. In her complaint petition, O.P. No.2 has made serious allegations against her husband and father-in-law. On her complaint, a First Information Report has been lodged under section 498A, 323, 324 r/w section 34 IPC.
3. Mr. Rohan Kashyap, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the complaint petition there is no specific allegation against the petitioner and all the blame is on the father-in-law. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to keep his wife.
4. In her complaint, O.P. No.2 has given vivid description of her harassment, torture and demand of dowry at the hands of her husband and father-in-law. From the order dated 06.01.2020 by which Anticipatory Bail Petition No.01 of 2020 moved by the petitioner in the court of District & Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Ghatsila has been rejected, it appears that the petitioner has taken a position that his wife is mentally sick and she is a quarrelsome lady. The petitioner's wife has stated that she was always subjected to 2 harassment and torture and one day when she was getting ready to attend duty her father-in-law came from back and gave a blow from a sharp-cutting weapon causing injury to her. There is a reference of a panchayati between parties which apparently did not succeed. The learned District & Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Ghatsila has observed that in several paragraphs of the case-diary various incidents of cruelty and torture meted to the informant have been recorded. The injury report has also been taken on record vide Annexure-13 which shows serious injury to the informant.
5. In the above facts, in my opinion, prima-facie this does not appear to be a case of a disgruntled wife initiating a criminal case against her husband with oblique motive. No doubt, an accused is not required to demonstrate and establish extraordinary case for grant of anticipatory bail, but then, the materials on record have to be kept in mind.
6. From the materials brought on record, I find that it cannot be said that the complaint is a frivolous one.
7. In the above facts and considering the overall circumstances in the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and, accordingly, A.B.A. No.469 of 2020 is dismissed. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the court below and moves an application with a copy of the bail petition atleast two days in advance served upon the learned APP, his petition for regular bail may be heard and decided on the same day, without being influenced by dismissal of the present application.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) R.K.