Jharkhand High Court
Krishna Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 January, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.412 of 2025
------
Krishna Kumar, Aged about 44 years, Son of late Diwakar Ram,
Resident of Road No-8, Jagannathpur, P.O. & P.S.- Gamharia,
District- Seraikella-Kharsawan (Jharkhand).
.... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Manisha Sharma, aged about- 37 years, Wife of Krishna
Kumar, Daughter of Sri Rajendra Sharma, Resident of 2
RF/22, Babuline, Near Noamundi Tata Steel Hospital, P.O. &
P.S.- Noamundi, District- West Singhbhum (Jharkhand)
.... .... .... Opposite Parties
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mritunjay Chaudhary, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Naveen Kr. Gaunjhu, Addl.P.P
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Rahul Dev, Advocate
------
Order No.02 Dated-24-01-2025
Heard the parties.
Apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.308 of
2022 instituted under Sections 498A/323/341/406 of the Indian Penal Code
and Section 67(A) of the I.T. Act, the petitioner has moved this Court for
grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, being the husband of
the complainant/opposite party No.2 treated her with cruelty in connection
with demand of dowry. It is submitted that the allegation against the
petitioner is false. Drawing attention of this Court to Annexure-2 of the
instant bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
same is the judgment passed by the Family Court, Chaibasa in Original Suit
No.11 of 2022 whereby marriage of the petitioner and the
complainant/opposite party No.2 has been dissolved on 15.05.2023. It is next
submitted that because of marital discord, this false case has been foisted
against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner undertakes
that he will not annoy or disturb the complainant/opposite party No.2 or
any of her family member in any manner during the pendency of the case. It
is lastly submitted that the petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the trial
of the case and to furnish sufficient security including cash security. Hence, it
is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State and the learned counsel for
the opposite party No.2 oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioner.
Considering the submissions of learned counsels and the facts and
circumstances stated above, I am inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory
bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender in
the Court below within six weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or
surrendering, he will be enlarged on bail on depositing Rs.50,000/- as cash
security and on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned SDJM,
Chaibasa in connection with Complaint Case No.308 of 2022 with the
condition that he will co-operate with the trial of the case and he will not
annoy or disturb the informant or any of her family members in any
manner during the pendency of the case and further conditions as laid
down under Section 482 (2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Saroj/
