Pankaj Gupta @ Mintu @ Pankaj Kumar Gupta vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 5 September, 2011

[Cites 0, Cited by 4]

Jharkhand High Court

Pankaj Gupta @ Mintu @ Pankaj Kumar Gupta vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 5 September, 2011

Bench: D. N. Upadhyay

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 A. B. A. No. 1687 of 2011
                              ---
           Pankaj Gupta @ Mintu @ Pankaj Kumar Gupta ...              Petitioner
                                  Versus
           1. The State of Jharkhand
           2. Preety alias Neha Kumari           ...     ...      Opposite Parties
                              ---
           CORAM        : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. UPADHYAY
                              ---
           For the Petitioner             : Mr. Tejo Mistri, Advocate
           For the Opposite Party No. 1 : Additional Public Prosecutor
                              ---
3/05.09.2011

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 498 (A) and 323 of the I.P.C.

It is alleged in the complaint that Neha Kumari was subjected to torture for want of more dowry. Her pregnancy was terminated at the instance of accused persons and the complainant was also assaulted by means of iron rod due to which she sustained injury on her face.

It is submitted that the complainant is suffering from mental decease from before the marriage and it was concealed by the parents of the complainant. No dowry was ever demanded nor she was subjected to torture.

Learned counsel for the State as well as counsel appearing for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail.

It is pointed out that in order to create defence, the accused persons have produced another lady before the doctor for treatment which is apparent from perusal of Annexure C at page 16. The complainant was treated by doctor when she was assaulted on her face and also when her pregnancy was terminated.

Considering the direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that he caused assault to the complainant and subjected her to torture, I am not inclined to grant him anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. Petitioner is directed to surrender in the court of Shri Anil Kumar

-II, Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Jamshedpur in connection with C/1 Case No. 2560 of 2010 within a fortnight and pray for regualr bail which will be considered without being prejudiced by this order.

(D. N. Upadhyay, J) R. Shekhar Cp 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court