How #husbands are #arrested & #JAILED if they do not agree to wife’s DEMANDS !!

The sad and sick state of falsedowry cases, USURIOUS DEMANDS & # innocent men languishing in jail
Patna High Court – Orders
Amrit Anand @ Chhotu vs The State Of Bihar on 14 January, 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.37834 of 2014

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1973 Year- 2009 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-

PATNA

Amrit Anand @ Chhotu, son of Panchanand Ojha, resident of Mohalla – Ashok Nagar, Near Dwarika Chowk, Kankarbagh, District Patna, presently residing at Kusum Vihar, Colony Saraidhela, P.S. Saraidhela, District
Dhanbad.
…. …. Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

…. …. Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhinay Raj, Advocate

Mr. Alok Kumar Rahi, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Gopesh Kumar, A.P.P.

For the complainant : Mr. Anand Kumar Pandey, Advocate

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

ORAL ORDER

2 14-01-2015

The petitioner is being tried on a complaint submitted by his wife alleging offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

The only allegation against the petitioner is that he demanded certain amount. No physical acts whatever were attributed to him.

B.P.No.18845 of 2014 was filed by the petitioner before the Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Patna which was dismissed on 22.08.2014.

Heard Sri Abhinay Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gopesh Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State and Sri Arvind Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant.

This is an instance of gross misuse of the provision of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Obviously by taking note of the weakness of the allegation against the petitioner, the trial Court granted anticipatory bail. That, however, was recalled only on the ground that counselling between the petitioner and his wife failed. The learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge was so insensitive that he did not even mention the justification for keeping the petitioner in prison and has just put the seal of approval on the cancellation of bond and putting the petitioner behind the bar.

Hence, this application is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released 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 Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna in connection with Complaint Case No.1973(C) of 2009.

(L. Narasimha Reddy, CJ)

Sunil/-

U T

Amrit Anand @ Chhotu vs The State Of Bihar on 14 January, 2015

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s