The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4314 of 2024 1. Pawan Kumar 2. Hiralal Pandit … Versus … Petitioners The State of Jharkhand CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR … ... Opposite Party For the petitioners For the State For the Informant -----
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rahul Dev, Advocate : Mr. Someshwar Roy, A.P.P. : Mr. Krishna Prajapati, Advocate Miss Apurva, Advocate ----- 06/22.08.2024 The petitioners are apprehending their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 342/323/325/379/307/ 498-A/313/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Saria P.S. Case No. 211/2023, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih. 2. Pursuant to order dated 12.08.2024, the petitioner no. 1 and the informant are physically present before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and have not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. The petitioner no. 1 is the husband of the informant and the petitioner no. 2 is her brother- in-law (devar). The entire allegation made in the written report is concocted. In fact, no such occurrence has taken place. After solemnization of the marriage between the petitioner no. 1 and the informant on 11.03.2020, the petitioner no. 1 took her to his parental home at Baghanal, P.S.-Saria. However, the informant was not agreeable to stay with his parents and other family members. She also pressurized the petitioner no. 1 to stay separately. Since the petitioner did not agree to the said intent of the informant, the present F.I.R has been lodged against him and his family members making false and concocted allegations. Moreover, the allegation against the accused persons including the petitioners regarding demand of dowry and subjecting the informant to torture for non-fulfillment of the same is also false and incorrect. 4. It is further submitted that the informant had earlier filed a maintenance case being Original Maintenance Case No. 386/2023 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Giridih. A mediation proceeding was held on 27.06.2024 in the said case which came out successful in which the petitioner no. 1 and the informant agreed to stay together. The petitioner no. 1 further agreed to take the informant with him from the court itself and to pay Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance to her as well as for education and other necessities of their three years old son – Preet Kumar. It was also agreed that the informant would stay in her matrimonial home for three months and after being satisfied with her stay there for the said period, she would take further decision with respect to the present case. The said fact would be evident from the mediation proceeding dated 27.06.2024 conducted at the Mediation Centre, Civil Court, Giridih. 5. It is also submitted that since the informant did not agree to stay in her matrimonial home, the petitioner no. 1 took her in his official accommodation situated within the premises of Tatijharia Police Station, Hazaribag, where he is presently posted as Sub-Inspector of Police. Moreover, the petitioner has already paid about Rs.85,000/- to the informant as maintenance amount including the arrears. The petitioner has also got his son admitted in Nursery Class at DAV Sanford Public School, Tatijharia, Hazaribag. Other co-accused persons A.B.A. No. 4314 of 2024 2 namely, Tribhuwan Pandit, Panwa Devi, Prayag Pandit and Kajal Devi (in-laws of the informant) have already been granted anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.07.2024 passed in A.B.A No. 3076 of 2024. Hence, the petitioners may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant while referring to the counter affidavit as well as supplementary counter affidavit dated 20.08.2024 submits that the petitioner no. 1 is a Sub-Inspector of Police presently posted at Tatijharia Police Station and the petitioner no. 2 is a Forest Guard. Both of them by misusing their power, continuously threatened the informant and her family members. The petitioner no. 2 is a greedy person and he does not want that the informant should live with her husband (the petitioner no. 1). It has been clearly mentioned in the written report of the informant that on 19.11.2023, both the petitioners along with other accused persons locked the informant in a room and brutally assaulted her. The accused persons forcibly administered some medicine in her mouth. The petitioner no. 2 kicked her stomach due to which her two months pregnancy got aborted. On 20.11.2023, the informant’s father came to her matrimonial home, who was also assaulted by means of lathi, danda, bricks and stone by the accused persons and the petitioners also snatched golden chain worth Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.14,000/- in cash. 7. It is further submitted that even after the settlement was arrived at between the petitioner no. 1 and the informant on 27.06.2024 in Original Maintenance Case No. 386/2023, the petitioner no. 1 threatened her with dire consequences while she was staying in A.B.A. No. 4314 of 2024 3 his official accommodation within the premises of Tatijharia Police Station, Hazaribag. Under the said circumstance, the informant has been compelled to leave the said official accommodation of the petitioner no. 1. She is presently residing in a rented house and is no longer interested in continuing matrimonial relationship with him. It is thus submitted that the petitioners may not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that even after compromise with the informant in the maintenance case, the petitioner no. 1 continued to harass the informant while she was staying with him in his official accommodation due to which she does not want to continue her matrimonial relationship with him. It further appears that there is direct allegation against the petitioner no. 2 in the written report of the informant that he mercilessly kicked her stomach and he along with other accused persons, forcibly administered medicine in her mouth due to which her two months pregnancy got aborted. 9. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case and the nature of allegation made against the above-named petitioners, I am not inclined to enlarge them on anticipatory bail. 10. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the abovenamed petitioners is rejected. Manish (Rajesh Shankar, J.) A.B.A. No. 4314 of 2024 4