Tag Archives: 498a bail

Bail with tough conditions, passport surrender etc for ipc 498a accused. Wife stayed just 12 days !

Bail with tough conditions, passport surrender, prior permission needed to travel outside India, rights to police to further apply for custodial interrogation etc etc for 498a accused husband. Court has taken note of the fact that the case is about alleged events in Bangalore where wife stayed just 12 days !

This wife who stayed only 12 days in place of allegation seems to have ALSO ROPED IN THE UNCLE IN LAW !!

Gujarat High Court

Praveenkumar Udaypratap Singh vs State Of Gujarat on 5 February, 2019

Bench: Vipul M. Pancholi

R/CR.MA/24293/2018

ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 24293 of 2018

PRAVEENKUMAR UDAYPRATAP SINGH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT


Appearance:
ADITYA A CHOKSI(7835) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI PATHAK APP(2) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

Date : 05/02/2019

ORAL ORDER

  1. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant­accused has prayed for anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. I- 83/2018 registered with Songadh Police Station, Tapi for the offenses punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 503, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3, 5 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
  2. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. He further submits that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation, trial also and will not flee from justice.
  3. Learned advocate for the applicant on instructions states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition R/CR.MA/24293/2018 ORDER of conditions with regard to powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent Court for his remand. He further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that considering the above facts, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.
  4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail and pointed out from the investigation papers that the amount as stated in the FIR is transferred in the bank account of the applicant. She further contended that there is specific allegation in the FIR about the torture given by the applicant at Bengalore and, therefore, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant.
  5. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the material placed on record including investigation papers and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of offences, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
  6. This Court has considered the following aspects, (a) FIR is filed for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code for the alleged incident, which has occurred at Bengalore; (b) it is not in dispute that the complainant had stayed for 12 days only at Bengalore; (c) while granting anticipatory bail to the uncle­in­law i.e. the co­accused, this Court has observed in the order dated 24.12.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.22364/2018 that “attention is drawn to the allegations in the FIR itself where it is coming out that the expenditure of marriage, which took place at Uttar Pradesh, was footed by the family of the applicant and the incident of settling the accounts thereafter“. Thus from the said observation made by this Court, the contention of learned advocate for the applicant about the transfer of the money in the account of the present applicant or parent is supported by the said observation. Therefore in view of the above facts, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required.
  7. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported at [2011] 1 SCC 694, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, reported at (1980) 2 SCC 665.
  8. In the result, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with a FIR being C.R. No. I-83/2018 registered with Songadh Police Station, Tapi on his executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/­ (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions: (a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required; (b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 08.02.2019 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.; (c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; (d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police; (e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change his residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders; (f) shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the Trial Court within a week; and (g) it would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand if he considers it proper and just and the learned Magistrate would decide it on merits;
  9. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant. The applicant shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the learned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining application of the prosecution for police remand. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if, ultimately, granted, and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the applicant, even if, remanded to the police custody, upon completion of such period of police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other conditions of this anticipatory bail order.
  10. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.
  11. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Direct service is permitted.

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.) Gautam

Advertisements

Husband gets #Anticipatory #Bail #AB in #498a #ipc406 #ipc506 case though #wife claims all #Jewels Not #Returned. #DelhiHC

Husband gets #Anticipatory #Bail #AB in #498a #ipc406 #ipc506 though #wife claims all #Jewels Not #Returned. #DelhiHC

//however, a plea was raised that the entire jewellery has not been received, to which the petitioner contends that entire jewellery has been returned to the respondent.

5. Perusal of the record shows that petitioner has made out a case for anticipatory bail. No case is made out for the custodial interrogation of the petitioner.///

**

Delhi High Court

Lalit Singh Negi vs State on 17 April, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment delivered on: 17.04.2018

BAIL APPLN. 2478/2016

LALIT SINGH NEGI ….. Petitioner
versus

STATE ….. Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner : Mr Gurmehar Singh Sistani and Mr Samit Khosla
with petitioner in person.
For the Respondent : Ms. Anita Abraham, APP for the State.
SI Satish Kumar, PS Ambedkar Nagar.
Mr Vinod Dubey, Advocate for complainant.

CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

JUDGMENT

17.04.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

  1. 1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.445/2016 under Sections 498A/406/506/34 IPC, Police Station Ambedkar Nagar.
  2. 2. Parties were referred to Mediation; however, no settlement could be arrived at. Petitioner was granted interim protection on 02.12.2016 subject to joining investigation.
  3. 3. As per the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the petitioner did join investigation, as and when he was called upon to do so.
  4. 4. On 06.09.2017, this Court had recorded the contention of the complainant that she has received part of jewellery from the petitioner in the Police Station on 15.07.2017 and also a demand draft of Rs.70,000/-, however, a plea was raised that the entire jewellery has not been received, to which the petitioner contends that entire jewellery has been returned to the respondent.
  5. 5. Perusal of the record shows that petitioner has made out a case for anticipatory bail. No case is made out for the custodial interrogation of the petitioner. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail by the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer/SHO, on his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer/SHO.
  6. 6. The petitioner shall not do anything, which shall either prejudice the investigation or any of the prosecution witnesses. The petitioner shall join investigation, as and when so required by the Investigating Officer.
  7. 7. The Petition is accordingly disposed of.
  8. 8. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
APRIL 17, 2018/’Sn’

Wife runs away in ’09. Elders forced 2 ‘accept her with diginity & honour’ in ’16 for bail! Mad Mad 498a

A woman has deserted matrimonial house in 2009 & has happily filed 498a cocktail (probably in 2015 / 2016). This 498a woman is NOT present in the current hearing as well. She doesn’t seem to be represented by any lawyer (only AP for the state on the opposite side) . However to get their bail and freedom, elderly parents of the husband are forced to say “That the petitioners are ready to kept the opposite party no.2 with full human dignity and honour. Even the husband (Suman Mishra) is ready to kept his wife (opposite party no.2) with full love and affection…..”

This is worse than being a slave… !! Don’t men have ANY dignity in this country ? why is there such a stipulation for a bail that too when there is NO evidence of physical violence the case is not properly tried  ? and no signs of her for so many years ?? why are men and their elders dragged to courts JUST on the words of a wife ? that too a deserter ? should such a stipulation be necessary at this stage BEFORE any evidence, inquiry or trial ?


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.19892 of 2016
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -448 Year- 2009 Thana -COMPLAINT CASE District- SUPAUL


1.Lakhan Mishra, Son of Late Rajbanshi Mishra
2. Sumitra Devi @ Bibha Devi @ Sumitra Devi, Wife of Lakhan Mishra
….. …. Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Meena Devi Daughter of Shobha Kant Jha, Resident of village- Bhim

Nagar, P.S. Birpur District- Supaul….. …. Opposite Party/s
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com


Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Baidya Nath Thakur, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwary(App)


CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH

ORAL ORDER

2 04-05-2016 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the State.

The petitioners being parents of the husband of the complainant are apprehending arrest in a complaint case wherein process has been directed to be issued after cognizance being taken for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Basic accusation is of torture.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that marriage of the complainant with son of the petitioners was performed in 2004 when the complainant deserted the matrimonial house in 2009. The petitioners and the husband of the complainant are ready to keep the complainant with full dignity and honour. A statement to that effect has been made in paragraph 9 of the petition which reads as follows :- “That the petitioners are ready to kept the opposite party no.2 with full human dignity and honour. Even the husband (Suman Mishra) is ready to kept his wife (opposite party no.2) with full love and affection…..”. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

It is further submitted that the thrust of accusation is against the husband of the complainant and accusation levelled against the petitioners are omnibus and general.

Considering the aforesaid facts, let the above named petitioners be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of 12 weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of `10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Saharsa in connection with Complaint Case No.448 C/2009, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) Ashwini/-

U T

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.


CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************************

 

AB in Dowry, 306 case as accused is 52 yrs old diabetic & other accused already quashed. Guj. HC

“…regarding the FIR, … vide order dated 6.2.2015 quashed and set aside the FIR against other co- accused. ….”

“…that present applicant is aged about 52 years and suffering from diabetes and other ailments. ….”

“…Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. ….”

****************************************************************
****************************************************************

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 19319 of 2015

****************************************************************
RANJANBEN MANILAL BHANDARI….Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1….Respondent(s)
****************************************************************
Appearance:
MR ADIL R MIRZA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK SONI APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
****************************************************************

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED

Date : 30/10/2015

ORAL ORDER

1. This is an application for anticipatory bail Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with the FIR bearing CR No. I – 85 of 2009 registered with Umargam Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent lady and has not committed any alleged offence. He submitted that regarding the FIR, one application being Criminal Misc. Application No.4201 of 2010 was filed before this Court and this Court vide order dated 6.2.2015 quashed and set aside the FIR against other co- accused. He submitted that against present applicant, the FIR was not quashed, as said applicant was not pressed at that time. He also submitted that present applicant is aged about 52 years and suffering from diabetes and other ailments. He therefore, submitted that the present applicant may kindly be granted anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions.

3. Heard learned APP for the respondent State. He has vehemently opposed the present application and submitted that no discretionary relief is required to be exercised in favour of the present applicant.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011)1 SCC 694, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors., reported in (1980)2 SCC 565.

5. Learned counsel for the parties do not press for further reasoned order.

6. In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of applicant herein being arrested pursuant to FIR being C.R.No.I- 85 of 2009 registered with Umargan Police Station, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousands only) with one surety of like amount, on the following conditions that she shall:

[a] cooperate with the investigation and make herself available for interrogation whenever and wherever required.

[b] shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 4.11.2015 at 11.00 AM [c] shall not hamper the investigation in any manner nor shall directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

[d] at the time of execution of bond, furnish her residential address to the investigating officer and the Court concerned and shall not change the residence till the final disposal of the case or till further orders;

[e] not leave State of Gujarat without the permission of the Court and, if holding a passport, she shall surrender the same before the Trial Court within a week;

[f] not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;

7. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant. The applicant shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the learned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining application of the prosecution for police remand. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if, ultimately, granted and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the applicant, even if, remanded to the police custody, upon completion of such period of police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other conditions of this anticipatory bail order. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

8. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.

9. Rule is made absolute. Application is disposed of accordingly. Direct service is permitted.

(Z.K.SAIYED, J.)

YNVYAS

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
*******************************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************************

Unrelated villagers roped into 498a. Lower court NOT vigilant, Patna HC orders bail, decries misuse !

Misuse of 498a has become SO very rampant that completely un-related people are roped into 498a and they have to run up to the HC to get bail !!

In this case, quoting the Hon HC “…None can be allowed to misuse the privilege under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as a weapon which is to defend a helpless lady. It appears that court’s are not vigilant to prevent this abuse by way of taking cognizance for false prosecution. Petitioners are villagers not relatives of the husband…”

*************** case from public websites ****************

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                         Cr.Misc. No.4083 of 2010

1. BHIKHARI SINGH son of late Methur Singh
2. Shivendra Jha, son of Dinanath Jha
Both are residents of vill.-Chhourahiya, P.S.-Sahiyara, Distt.-Sitamarhi——-Petitioners.
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
***********

2. 3.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.

None can be allowed to misuse the privilege under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as a weapon which is to defend a helpless lady. It appears that court’s are not vigilant to prevent this abuse by way of taking cognizance for false prosecution. Petitioners are villagers not relatives of the husband.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order the above named petitioners shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi , in connection with Sahiyara P.S. case no.80 of 2009 , subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. http://evinayak.tumblr.com https://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

( Mandhata Singh, J. )

Sudip

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************