Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No. 22640 of 2013 ====================================================== 1. Dinesh Choudhari Son of Suraj Nath Choudhari Resident of Village- Dulia, Police Station- Jagdishpur, District- Bhojpur. 2. Jugesh Choudhari Son of Suraj Nath Choudhari Resident of Village- Dulia, Police Station- Jagdishpur, District- Bhojpur. 3. Suraj Nath Choudhari Son of Late Ram Bachan Choudhari Resident of Village- Dulia, Police Station- Jagdishpur, District- Bhojpur. 4. Arti Devi Wife of Jugesh Choudhari Resident of Village- Dulia, Police Station- Jagdishpur, District- Bhojpur. .... .... Petitioners The State of Bihar Versus .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. For the Opposite Party : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER 3. 13-08-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing for the complainant, who has suo motu appeared. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 267C of 2011 (T.R. No. 3260 of 2011) in which cognizance has been taken under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Petitioner no. 1 is the husband, petitioner no. 2 is the elder brother, petitioner no. 3 is the father-in-law, respectively, of the daughter of the complainant and petitioner no. 4 is the wife of petitioner no. 2. The allegation is that the daughter of the
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22640 of 2013 (3) dt.13-08-2013 2/6 complainant was tortured due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and also of turning out from the matrimonial house. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present case is false and the petitioners are innocent. It is submitted that earlier also in the year 2006, there was a police case in which the informant was the present complainant and there was similar allegation which ultimately resulted in acquittal. Learned counsel submits that there was compromise in the said case and the daughter of the complainant had gone back to her matrimonial house but later on again came to her father’s house and was not ready to go back to the house of the petitioners and only to put pressure for getting some money, the present case has been instituted. Learned counsel refers to various annexures in the application and submits that the same are with regard to treatment of the daughter of the complainant as she was having some
Legal Reasoning
psychological problems. Learned counsel has filed a supplementary affidavit in which there is copy of the report of the local police station to the Superintendent of Police in which, upon interview taken of the daughter of the complainant, it transpires that she does not want to live with the in-laws since her husband was in job living outside and thus had gone to her father’s place. It has also been stated by her that she had received Rs. 1,00,000/- from her father-in- law (Petitioner no. 3) which she had deposited in the account Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22640 of 2013 (3) dt.13-08-2013 3/6 to her father (Complainant). The said report was pursuant to a written complaint made by the complainant, prior to filing of the present complaint, to the Superintendent of Police. It is submitted that the petitioners are ever ready to keep the daughter of the complainant in their house with full dignity, honour and security and it is the lady who is not ready for the same. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that the Court may try for reconciliation between the parties. Learned counsel for the complainant refers to the observations in the order of the Sessions Judge dated 29.04.2013, by which prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners was rejected, to point out that the girl was not ready to go to her matrimonial house in view of the fact that even after the initial compromise when she went to her matrimonial home, there was no change in the behavior of the husband or the in-laws (petitioners) in spite of execution of bond by them. He thus submits, that the petitioners only for the purposes of deriving undue advantage, initially in the criminal case and now in the present case also, are taking the stand that they are ready to keep the daughter of the complainant with full dignity, honour and security. However, he submits that the Court may fix adequate conditions so that the daughter of the complainant can go to her matrimonial house and live a peaceful life without fear. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22640 of 2013 (3) dt.13-08-2013 4/6 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners shall appear before the Court below within four weeks from today and they shall be enlarged on provisional bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara in Complaint Case No. 267C of 2011 (T.R. No. 3260 of 2011), subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court shall thereafter fix a date in the case calling upon the complainant to be present before the Court along with his daughter. On the date so fixed, the petitioners shall give an undertaking that they shall keep the daughter of the complainant with full dignity, honour and security. The petitioner no. 1 shall be responsible for her general upkeep including food, clothing and her medical expenses, as may be required. The petitioner no. 1 shall also give Rs. 1,500/- per month to her for her personal expenses. The Court thereafter shall fix monthly dates in the case for the next 12 months when the petitioner no. 1 and the daughter of the complainant shall personally appear before the Court and their statement shall be recorded. In the meantime, if an occasion arises due to violation of any of the terms and conditions of the bail or the undertaking, the complainant or his daughter will be at liberty to file an application before the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22640 of 2013 (3) dt.13-08-2013 5/6 Court below which shall be considered after hearing the petitioners. If it is found that there has been any violation, the bail granted to the petitioners in the present case shall stand cancelled. Upon completion of one year, the provisional bail shall be confirmed. However, the confirmation of the bail shall not be in absolute terms inasmuch as the liberty granted to the complainant and his daughter on the ground of violation of any of the terms of the bail and the undertaking shall continue in future also. In the event, the daughter of the complainant is still not ready to go with the petitioner no. 1/petitioners to the matrimonial house, the provisional bail granted to the petitioners shall be confirmed subject to the conditions that the petitioner no. 1 shall pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to the daughter of the complainant and shall also pay for her medical expenses. The complainant/his daughter shall file an application giving details of the expenses on account of her medical treatment, enclosing supporting documents, on a monthly basis before the Court whereupon the petitioner no. 1 shall pay the amount along with Rs. 3,000/- in favour of the complainant/his daughter. The said payment shall be made latest by the 10th of the following month. Any violation of the said terms and conditions shall also lead to cancelling of the bail granted to the petitioners in the present case. For the next four weeks no coercive steps shall Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22640 of 2013 (3) dt.13-08-2013 6/6 be taken against the petitioners in connection with Complaint Case No. 267C of 2011 (T.R. No. 3260 of 2011) pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara. The application stands disposed off in the aforementioned terms. Anand Kr. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)