Md Asif Imran v. State of Jharkhand
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 498A
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ss. 3, 4
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438(2)
Judgment
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY For the petitioner (s): Mr. Md. Asadul Haque For the opposite party : Addl.P.P./Mr. S.K. Ghatak
08.10.2012 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner in connection with C.P.case No. 215 of 2011 for the offence registered under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, and sections 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It reveals from the complaint that complainant Shahin Parvin was subjected to torture and treated with cruelty by the petitioner and his family members. She was subjected to assault and driven out from the house. It is submitted that the complainant herself does not want to live with the petitioner and for that, she has been making false excuses and has also filed this complaint with false allegations. The petitioner has also returned Rs. 2.5 lakhs which was given as consideration of marriage. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the complainant is ready to live with the petitioner. It is not disputed that the complainant has received back rupees two lakhs and fifty thousand which was given to the petitioner. Considering aforesaid aspect of the matter, the petitioner above named is directed to appear/ surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks positively from the date of this order and on his surrender, he shall be released 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 Sri M.K. Prajapati, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, in connection with C.P. case No. 215 of 2011 subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Ambastha/- ( D.N.Upadhyay,J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.