Daily Archives: January 10, 2018

Wife files IPC #498a #504 and #WITCH #CRAFT cases to settle #property #disputes !! Accused granted Anticipatory by #Jharkhand #HighCourt

Also, the complainant wife has filed a case against three minor children after showing their age falsely as 19 years, 20 years and 18 years respectively but when they had appeared before the concerned court below on the 22.8.2017 the learned court below found prima facie that they are juvenile !!!!


Shiv Kumar Pandey And Anr vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr on 5 January, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

A.B.A. No. 6060 of 2017

1.Shiv Kumar Pandey
2.Nakul Pandey @ Nakul Kumar Pandey…….. Petitioners
Vs.
State of Jharkhand and Anr …… ………………………. Opp Party
***

For the Petitioners :- Mrs. Rashmi Kumar

Advocate For the State :- A.P.P

For the O.P. No.2 :-Mr. Deepak Kumar Advocate

CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA


4/ Dated 5.1.2018:

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the entire prosecution case is false and concocted. The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Annexure-1 and said that for the purpose of maligning the petitioners and their family, the complaint case has been filed against them, although the petitioners and the complainant are close relatives but referred as Gotias. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that there is a long standing land dispute between the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further stated that the complainant has filed a case against three minor children after showing their age falsely as 19 years, 20 years and 18 years respectively but when they had appeared before the concerned court below on the 22.8.2017 the learned court below found prima facie that they are juvenile. The learned counsel for the petitioners further stated that the alleged land belongs to the petitioners or joint property and the complainant is trying to construct the toilet on indeterminate or claimed land and when the petitioner objected to the same, a false case has been lodged against the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners further stated that when the case was lodged, the petitioner no.1, in course of investigation, has come to know that the aforesaid alleged land has been sold by the complainant’s husband to the complainant by sale deed on payment of consideration amount of Rs.Four lakh sixty one thousand two hundred only. The petitioners will be contesting the illegal sale. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further stated that multiple offence has been alleged in the complaint petition against the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners further stated that when the petitioner objected to the construction of the toilet, then they have also been dragged in the false case. It is further stated that to harass the petitioners, complainant has again filed a complaint case under section 323/498A/379/504 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 /4 of the Witch Craft Act.

The learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail and said that the alleged land belongs to the complainant.

Having gone through the case records and after hearing the parties I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners and accordingly, petitioners above named are directed to surrender in the court below within two weeks from today and on such surrender they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate,Ist Class Koderma in connection with Complaint Case No. 82 of 2017 subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Ratnaker Bhengra,J.) SD

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/186574617/

Husband denied #Anticipatory #Bail even though wife commits #suicide 11 years #after #marriage !! Claims of allegation by late wife suffice 😪😪

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9556/2017
BETWEEN:

D M RAVI KUMAR
S/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT K HOSURU VILLAGE,
SHIDLAGHATTA VILLAGE
SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT
PIN: 562101.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI.PRABHUGOUD B.TUMBIGI, ADV. FOR SRI SHANKAR T N., ADV.)

AND

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
SHIDLAGHATTA RURAL POLICE STATION
CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101
REPRESETNED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU 560001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.290/2017 OF SHIDLAGATTA RURAL POLICE STATION, CHICKABALLAPURA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498-A,306 R/W 34 OF IPC.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                    ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 read with 34 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.290/2017.

  1. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
  2. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has submitted that the prosecution materials will not attract the alleged offence of abetment to commit suicide by the deceased. He also submitted that marriage of the deceased with petitioner was performed about 11 years back and the couple are having two issues. Even looking to the allegations in the complaint, there is no prima-facie case made out by the prosecution. It is also submitted that the deceased was suffering from mental illness and further submitted that petitioner was not present when the alleged incident has taken place. Hence, submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be admitted to anticipatory bail.

  3. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader, during the course of his arguments has submitted that looking to the prosecution material and the allegations in the complaint by the brother of the deceased there is a prima-facie material against the petitioner. The matter is still under investigation. Hence, at this stage, petitioner, being the husband of the deceased, is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

  4. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record, so also, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application of the petitioner herein.

  5. Looking to the allegations made in the complaint, it is stated by the brother of the deceased that the deceased used to tell before him about the ill- treatment given by her mother-in-law and other members of the family and in that connection they advised the accused persons to treat the deceased properly. The further allegations in the complaint show that one Anjinamma, the neighbour, informed the complainant about the commission of suicide by the deceased. The incident has taken place in the house of petitioner/accused No.1 and it is the petitioner/ husband of the deceased who has to explain the circumstances under which the incident has taken place. The matter is still under investigation, therefore, at this stage, it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner and to grant him anticipatory bail. Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.

Sd/-
JUDGE BSR

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/194548300/

Married #sister-in-law gets #anticipatory bail in #498a ( and #304B) Case ! #Calcutta #HC

Bail granted as she stands on same footing as other co accused who are already on bail

This cases also highlights the pathetic condition of women being accused in DOWRY cases. For every DOWRY CASE, for every ANGRY or dead housewife, as many as five other women could be affected, be dragged to be spending their precious lives at police stations and courts.


Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Kamalika Bakshi (Mukherjee) vs Unknown on 8 January, 2018

104 08.01.2018

rkd Ct. No.28

C.R.M. 114 of 2018

(Allowed)

In Re: – An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 04/01/2018 in connection with Uttarpara P.S. Case No. 903 of 2017 dated 30/10/2017 under Sections 498A/306/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

And In the matter of: Kamalika Bakshi (Mukherjee) ….petitioner.

Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Adv., Mr. A. Ghatak, Adv., Md. A. Ansari, Adv., Mr. Y. Deora, Adv.

…for the petitioner.

Mr. S. Banerjee, Adv., Ms. P. Ghosh, Adv.

…for the State.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is the married sister-in-law of the victim housewife and it is submitted that the petitioner stands on the same footing as the co-accused person, namely Krishnendu Bakshi has been enlarged on bail.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.

Having considered the materials in the case diary and bearing in mind the fact that petitioner is the married sister-in- law and the fact that the co-accused person, namely Krishnendu Bakshi has been enlarged on bail, we are inclined in granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a Bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.

(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.)

(Joymalya Bagchi,J.)