Sh. Dashrath Lal Barnwal vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 2097 Jhar

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                A.B.A. No.8350 of 2021
                            ------

1. Sh. Dashrath Lal Barnwal

2. Smt. Sudama Devi .... .... .... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... ....Opposite Party

------

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Rohan Chander, Advocate Ms. Manjusha Priya, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajendra Ram Ravi Das, A.P.P For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Naveen Kr. Jaiswal, Adv.

Mrs. Nutan Kumari Sharma, Adv.

------

Order No.06 Dated- 19.05.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Apprehending their arrest in connection with Mahila Thana P.S. Case No. 16 of 2021 instituted under Sections 376, 417, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.

3. Briefly stated the contents of the FIR depicts that victim girl (informant) was contacted by the son of petitioners namely Sushil Kumar Barnwal at Shadi. Com. Site on 18.08.2019 and pursuant to that they started talking each other over phone. The accused- Sushil Kumar Barnwal has disclosed his identity as worker in Merchant Navy. It is alleged that on 27.01.2020 he returned from his duty and came to Ranchi to meet the informant but initially she declined on ground of bad health condition, thereafter, he requested the mother of the informant who agreed on condition that victim girl will be accompanied by her friends which was objected by accused- Sushil Kumar Barnwal saying that he will feel uncomfortable in their company. It is further alleged that on insistence of accused- Sushil Kumar Barnwal, the victim girl alone accompanied him and stayed at a restaurant for 4-5 hours with his four other friends, who also consumed food and wine. It is further alleged that the informant along with accused- Sushil Kumar Barnwal returned to her home but her parent were not present, then he persistently requested to establish physical relationship, which was flatly refused by the victim but he prevailed over the will of the victim girl saying that we are going to marry very soon, hence there must be no problem and established physical relationship against her will and consent on pretext of false promise of marriage. It is further alleged that the parents of informant were also invited to native home of the petitioners at Hirodih, District Giridih for negotiation of marriage, pursuant to that on demand of petitioners Rs.4 lakhs was given to accused- Sushil Kumar Barnwal for purchase of flat in Mumbai. It is further alleged that the function of "Phal Daan" was organized on 05.03.2020 and 6.03.2020 in which petitioner No.1 was given Rs.2 lakhs. It is further alleged that after few days accused- Sushil Kumar Barnwal visited passport office Ranchi and visited her home while she was alone in her home. accused- Sushil Kumar Barnwal again in stubborn manner asked for physical favour which was again denied by the victim but he said that now the marriage has been fixed, so there must be no problem. Thus physical relationship was established. Thereafter, the lockdown was imposed due to spread of Covid-19, in the meantime, conduct and behaviour of petitioners and their son abruptly changed towards the informant and her family. accused- Sushil Kumar Barnwal went to his duty in the first week of July, 2020 and informed to the victim that he would return in the month of January, 2021 and they will solemnize court marriage. It is further alleged that gradually the petitioners snapped all relations with the victim and also changed their mobile phones so that no conversation may take place. The informant also came to know that the petitioners are going to see another girl for solemnization of marriage of their son namely Sushil Kumar Barnwal at Jaggarnath Madir at Ranchi then, the informant along her family members reached there for protest but petitioners managed to escape. It is alleged that petitioners have ruined her life by committing rape on her and fraudulently obtained huge amount of money in the shape of dowry and duped all family members due to which, she underwent to depression and finding no other option but to lodge this case.

4. It is here pertinent to mention at the very outset that the present anticipatory bail application i.e. A.B.A. No.8350 of 2021 was heard and disposed off by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.04.2022 with following observation:-

" in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of 8 weeks from the date of this order, petitioner shall be released on jointly depositing Rs.2 lakhs by way of demand draft drawn in favour of informant without prejudice to his defence, subject to final decision of this case and on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five Thousand) each two sureties of the like amount of each to the satisfaction of Learned J.M, Ranchi in connection with Mahila Thana P.S. Case No.16 of 2021."

Above order was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing SLP(Crl.) No.1210 of 2022 which was converted into Cr. Appeal No.1320 of 2022 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court along with Cr. Appeal No.1318 of 2022 and other batch of petitions involving common aspects in all cases, set aside the order of bail granted to the petitioner and remitted back for fresh consideration before another learned Judge who would analyze each case keeping in mind the factual scenario, the nature of offence and the settled principles for grant of bail. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also clarified that while remitting back of this case for fresh hearing that in view of judgment rendered in the case of Dharmesh @ Dharmendra @ Dhamo Jagdish Bhai @ Jagga Bhai Bhagu Bhai Ratadia and Anr. Vs. State of Gujrat (2021) 7 SCC 198 there is no question of victim compensation, as there cannot be such criteria at the stage of grant of bail.

Accordingly, the matter was assigned to this Court for hearing and disposal.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence at all rather they have been falsely implicated in this case. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners of taking money from the informant as dowry. It is further submitted that the informant has not disclosed the mode of payment made to the petitioners and their son which cast doubt on the allegation levelled against the petitioners. It is further submitted that petitioners have joined the investigation and co- operating in the investigation of the case and they have no criminal background whatsoever. Petitioners undertake not to tamper with the prosecution evidence or influence the witnesses, if admitted to bail. Petitioners also undertake to abide by all terms and conditions imposed upon them in the matter of granting bail. Hence, the petitioners may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners that petitioners took Rs.2 lakhs from the informant in the shape of dowry. Hence, petitioners do not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of allegation against petitioners, their role in the alleged offence coupled with materials available on record, I am inclined to extend privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to surrender in the Court within four weeks from today and in the event of their arrest or surrendering, they will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M, Ranchi in connection with Mahila Thana P.S. Case No. 16 of 2021 with the condition that they will co-operate with the investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and furnish their mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that they will not change their mobile number during the pendency of the case and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Pappu/