Jharkhand High Court
Dharmendra Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 April, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 4120 of 2019
Dharmendra Kumar ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Reshmi Devi ..... Opp. Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Farooq Ansari, Advocate.
Mr. Ganesh Ram, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Sanat Kumar Jha, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate.
---------
nd
Order No. 08/Dated: 2 April, 2024
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Apprehending his arrest in connection with C.P. Case No. 555
of 2018 instituted under Sections 498A, 323, 341, 34 of the I.P.C., the
petitioner has moved to this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory
bail.
As per the complaint, the allegation against the petitioner is that
the marriage of complainant was solemnized with the petitioner on
16.07.2010 at Rajrappa temple as per Hindu rites and customs. At the
time of marriage, the parents of the complainant gave Rs. 3 lakhs in
cash and jewelries and other house hold articles worth Rs. 2 lakhs.
Thereafter, the complainant went to her sasural and stayed peacefully
till one year and after that the accused persons including the petitioner
started demanding additional dowry and due to non-fulfillment of the
said demand, she was subjected to torture both physically and
mentally.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has
been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has further submitted that all the allegations levelled in the complaint
are false and fabricated. It is further submitted that it is a complaint
Page 1|3
case and there is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the
petitioner. It is further submitted that petitioner further undertakes to
cooperate in trail of the case and also abide by all terms and conditions
imposed by this Court in the matter of granting anticipatory bail.
Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory
bail.
Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State assisted by learned
counsel for the opposite party no. 2 opposed the prayer for anticipatory
bail of the petitioner and have submitted that there is direct and
specific allegation against the petitioner for torture for demand of
dowry, which is serious in nature. Hence, petitioner does not deserve
the privilege of anticipatory bail.
It appears that the matter was referred to mediation centre i.e.
JHALSA vide order dated 05.12.2023. Report has been submitted
showing that mediation has been successful between the parties. It
further appears that it is a complaint case lodged by the complainant
against her husband for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C.
and comes within the ambit of guidelines of the judgment passed by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in (2021) 10 SCC
773 and also during pendency of this application, further proceeding
of the court below was also stayed.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature
of allegation against petitioner coupled with materials available on
record, I am inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the
Court within four weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or
surrendering, he will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Dhanbad in connection with C.P. Case No. 555 of 2018 with the
Page 2|3
condition that petitioner shall file undertaking in respect of
compliance of terms and conditions of the settlement arrived at
JHALSA and will furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the
Aadhar Card with an undertaking that he will not change his 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.)
Sunil/
Page 3|3
