Jharkhand High Court
Ashok Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 January, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.10208 of 2023
----
Ashok Mandal ... Petitioner
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Kabita Devi ... Opposite Parties
----
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Din Dayal Saha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, A.P.P.
----
2/ 19.01.2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for
the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint
Case No.467 of 2022 for allegedly committing offence under Sections 498A of
the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of the Sub Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Rajmahal.
3. There is nothing on record to suggest that there is any
apprehension of arrest of the petitioner.
4. From the record, I find that only summons have been issued to
the petitioner. The petitioner, without complying any summon, has moved
anticipatory bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge I, Rajmahal
who rejected the same. In opinion of this Court, when a case has arisen out of
a complaint and has not been sent under Section 156(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the Additional Sessions Judge I, Rajmahal could not have
rejected the anticipatory bail application, rather should have directed the
petitioner to appear before the Magistrate in compliance of the summons,
which should have been considered on their appearance in terms of the
judgment passed by this Court in the case of Birendra Jha alias Virendra
Jha versus State of Jharkhand reported in 2001 SCC OnLine Jhar 386,
wherein this Court has held as under: -
"3. Of course, in respect of those offences, which are either quite
serious in nature or are heinous, and where on well-established
legal norms and parameters, denial of bail is a rule, the accused
should not be enlarged on bail, but, with respect to such offences
which are neither so serious nor heinous, such as cases which
are in the realm of either civil disputes (and where cognizance
has wrongly been taken) or such minor offences where
punishment, even if ultimately awarded, may not be death
sentence, or life imprisonment or imprisonment exceeding 7
(seven) years or thereafter, in a private complaint relating to such
offences, the Trial Court should, in normal circumstances, on the
date the accused appears in execution or the process issued
against him, should accept the bail bond of the accused along
with the surety bond and order his being enlarged on bail.
4. On the question of grant of bail to accused I may also observe
that there is another category of offences where normally bail
should be granted and refusal should be an exception. I am
taking of offences under Section 498A, I.P.C. and Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. My experience has shown me that
invariably in almost all cases relating to the alleged commission
of the aforesaid offences, whether lodged on police report or
through a private complaint, the accused are denied bail. Just
because the police report of the private complaint carries with it
the label of Section 498A, I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961, does not mean that the bail should be
denied to the accused. In relation to the aforesaid offences only if
a Court finds that there are very serious allegations against the
accused, his involvement and implicity in the commission of
offences being directly linked with the facts alleged and either it
is a very blatant and serious allegation of immediate and
proximate demand of dowry, or if the offence relates to Section
498A, I.P.C. there are serious allegations supported with clear
proof, that indeed physical injury has been inflicted upon the
alleged victim, only in these cases, rejection of the bail may be
resorted to, and its grant should be an exception. Of course, in
those cases where it is manifestly clear, on a plain reading of the
police report or the contents of the private complaint that neither
any grievous injury has been inflicted upon the alleged victim nor
is there any other clear proof of the alleged victim having
physically suffered and that there is also no serious allegation
supported with positive proof of dowry having been demanded in
the immediate proximity of the marriage or thereabout, the bail
should be granted. It happens quite often that in ordinary
matrimonial disputes or where there is some discordant note in a
matrimonial relationship, the woman as an alleged victim sets in
motion the machinery of law by invoking Section 498A, I.P.C. or
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Courts should,
therefore, be circumspect and careful, while considering the
question of grant of refusal of bail, to find out whether there are
indeed genuine and serious allegations and only then, if it does
find that such allegations exist and are clearly made out, should
bail be refused to the accused persons. Similarly, while
considering the request of the accused persons for bail in such
cases, the Court should also find out whether a particular
accused had any role to play in the transaction or in the
occurrence and whether, in the background of the facts and
circumstances, there are any probabilities of his having played
such a role, regard being had to the relationship of such an
accused with the main parties, such as the husband, or the in-
laws of the alleged victim. While considering all such aspects
with relation to the question whether to refuse bail or to grant
bail, the Courts, therefore, should be very careful in also
assessing with reference to the contents of the police report or
the complaint, the nature of the allegations made, the supporting
proof and documents etc. to find out whether the prosecution, the
de facto complainant or the informant are trying to unnecessarily
harass the accused and jeopardize their interest and, if in fact,
there are grounds to believe that an offence has been committed.
It is only in the latter case that the bail may be refused. In former
case, the grant of bail shall be a rule."
5. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of. The
petitioner will comply with the summons and once he appears, his case shall
be considered in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of
Birendra Jha alias Virendra Jha (supra) and the other judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-03
