Jharkhand High Court
Rahul Kumar Singh @ Lalu Singh @ Rahul ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 26 February, 2021
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 6390 of 2020
Rahul Kumar Singh @ Lalu Singh @ Rahul Singh ............Petitioner
Vrs.
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Julli Singh ............. Opposite Parties
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioners : Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tapas Roy, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Shrawan Kumar, Advocate 06 /26.02.2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Nagmani Tiwari;
Mr. Shrawan Kumar for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Tapas Roy, learned A.P.P. Petitioner seeks protection of anticipatory bail in terms of Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with Piparwar P.S. Case No. 09 of 2020 for the offence registered under Section 323, 324, 498(A) of the I.P.C and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of S.D.J.M., Chatra.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are vague and omnibus allegations levelled against 5 members of the family including the petitioner husband and his unmarried sister by the complainant/ informant wife of demand of dowry of Rs. 2 Lakhs and torture on nonfulfillment thereof. Allegation has also been made of second marriage of the petitioner after marriage with the informant. There are no proof of any injury or torture connected with the alleged demand of dowry. Petitioner is completely innocent in the matter.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though opposite party no.2 did make allegation of second marriage of the petitioner in the complaint petition and has also made submissions to that effect in the counter affidavit enclosing certain photograph, but no offence under Section 494 of the I.P.C has been instituted. The F.I.R. has been instituted under section 323,324, 498(A) of the I.P.C and 3/4 of the D.P. Act. Apart from that, there are no proof of any torture or injury upon the opposite party no.2 on the complaints of ill treatment due to non-fulfillment of dowry. Petitioner including 5 of the family members have been implicated on such allegations. Petitioner is still ready to keep her with full dignity and honour. Opposite Party no.2 has lodged a case for maintenance but no final order has been passed -2- therein. However, if this Court deems fit, petitioner is ready to pay any respectable amount as maintenance to her in the meantime. Therefore, protection in terms of Section 438 Cr.P.C may be granted.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 -complainant/ informant submits that the action of the petitioner and his family members have culminated to such an extent that opposite party no.2 had to leave the matrimonial home and was compelled to institute this case. The opposite party no.2 is not in a position to go back to the matrimonial home after remarriage of the petitioner.
I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the facts and circumstances above. It appears that petitioner along with 5 other family members have been implicated on allegation of torture for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry within 7 years of the marriage. The marriage took place on 18.01.2019 and the complaint was instituted on 02.03.2020. Though there are allegation of second marriage and statement / photographs are annexed in the counter affidavit but no case under Section 494 of the I.P.C seems to have been instituted. The opposite party no.2 is not ready to go back to the matrimonial house and has filed a case for maintenance. Petitioner in these circumstances is ready to pay maintenance to the wife for the time being.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the condition that he shall pay a sum of Rs.5000/- per month to the wife opposite party no.2 towards maintenance, which is to be paid by 10 th of every month starting from March 2021. Petitioner should pay either through electronic transfer to the bank account of the opposite party no.2 or before the learned Trial Court. In case the deposit is made before the learned Trial Court, the amount shall be disbursed to the opposite party no.2 on proper identification by the court concerned. Needless to say, the Family Court would take into account the interim maintenance granted by this Court in the present proceeding while finally disposing of the maintenance case.
Accordingly, petitioner, above named, in the event of his surrender or arrest within in a period of 4 weeks, subject to the -3- compliance of the order as above, shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M. Chatra in connection with Piparwar P.S. Case No. 09 of 2020, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
Needless to say, in case the condition of payment of maintenance is not complied by the time fixed by this Court till the maintenance case is disposed of, it would be open for the opposite party no.2 to move this Court for cancellation of his bail.
Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation of the case and that he and his bailors will not change their mobile number and address without prior permission of the learned Trial Court during the pendency of the case.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A.Mohanty