Bhagwan Sharma vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 2494 Jhar

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         A.B.A. No. 949 of 2021
     1.Bhagwan Sharma
     2.Pradeep Kumar Sharma                                   ............Petitioners
                              Vrs.
     1.The State of Jharkhand
     2. Nisha Kumari                                     ............. Opposite Parties
                                     .......

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanat Kumar Jha, A.P.P.

For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Dilip Kr. Karmakar, Advocate

09 /23.07.2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P.

Petitioners are the father-in-law and husband of the informant- opposite party no.2, who are seeking protection of anticipatory bail in terms of Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with Golmuri P.S. Case No. 20 of 2020 for the offence registered under Section 354 / 406 / 420 / 498A / 379/307 of the I.P.C and Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that as per the written report of the informant, marriage between the informant and petitioner no.2 took place on 04.05.2017 and allegations of cruelty in marriage and outrageous behaviour of the father-in-law/ petitioner no.1 have been made without any basis in the F.I.R registered in February, 2020. The father-in-law had himself lodged an informatory petition bearing no. 235 of 2019 before the S.D.J.M, Jamshedpur on 05.01.2019 (Annexure-3). It is contended that the informant wants to grab the property of the parents of the husband and therefore this case has been instituted to pressurize them. It is further submitted that a baseless allegation has been made against the father-in-law /petitioner no.1 of outraging her modesty. It is submitted that in a case instituted by the other daughter-in-law, which is Kadma P.S. Case No. 63 of 2017 against her husband i.e., the elder son of petitioner no.1 and also the instant petitioners, final form has been submitted by the Police on 31.08.2017 wherein case against petitioners Bhagwan Sharma and Pradeep Kumar Sharma was not found true. However, the case is still pending against the elder son of petitioner no.1 namely Ajit Sharma under charge-sheet no. 203 of 2017 instituted under Section 498A of

the I.P.C on 31.08.2017 itself. It is therefore submitted that on such concocted allegations petitioners may not be subjected to unnecessary incarceration.

Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. both opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the marriage of informant with petitioner no.2 was solemnized after fulfilling the demands of dowry but she was subjected to taunt and cruelty on further demand of dowry of Rs.10 Lakhs. Informant has also alleged that petitioner no.1 tried to indulge in wrongful act with her when her husband was not present. She somehow managed to call her father from the toilet to rescue her. Similar instances have been committed by the father-in-law against the elder daughter-in-law, who instituted Kadma P.S. Case No. 63 of 2017 against him, her husband and other family members. In such circumstances, these petitioners do not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the materials on record. It appears that the allegations of demand of dowry after marriage and consequent torture have been made against the petitioners. Certain allegation of outraging the modesty of the informant has also been made against petitioner no.1, father -in-law, though there are no basis to support that. Petitioners have also brought on record through their reply that similar allegations by the elder daughter-in-law against the father-in-law/ petitioner no.1have been found to be untrue and final form has been submitted in favour of petitioner no.1, though husband of the elder daughter-in-law has been charge-sheeted. It further appears that marriage of elder daughter-in-law with the elder son of petitioner no.1 has been dissolved by judgment dated 14.05.2019 passed in Original Suit No. 100 of 2017. Petitioner no.1 has also filed an informatory petition prior to the lodging of the instant F.I.R.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner No.1 Bhagwan Sharma only. However, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to petitioner no.2- husband, Pradeep Kumar Sharma.

Accordingly, petitioner no.1 Bhagwan Sharma, in the event of his surrender or arrest within in a period of 4 weeks, 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 Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with Golmuri P.S. Case No. 20 of 2020, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Petitioner no.1 Bhagwan Sharma 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. Prayer for anticipatory bail by petitioner no.2 Pradeep Kumar Sharma is rejected.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A.Mohanty