Tag Archives: 498a bail

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

 

Advertisements

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

A Husband is arrested and Jailed for one and half years. The Hon Patna HC is shocked !!.

A Husband is arrested and Jailed for one and half years as a result of a 498a complaint. The Hon Patna HC is shocked !!. The HC clearly mentions the misuse in it’s order

Granting Bail, the Hon HC says “…This case indeed discloses the extent to which the provision of Section 498A, IPC has been misused and as to how the legal system was unkind to the petitioner…..” “..For the past and one and-a-half years the petitioner is in prison. Even if he is held to be guilty of the offence alleged against him, the sentence cannot be that much….”

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.39340 of 2014

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1334 Year- 2012 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-PATNA

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

Md. Quasim @ Md. Kashim @ Md. Quasim Ansari, son of Md. Nabi Alam,

resident of village Phauladipur, PS Shakurabad, District Jehanabad…. ….   Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar…. …. Opposite Party

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

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s           :       Mr. Uday Narayan Singh

For the Opposite Party/s         :   Mr. Rita Verma, APP

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

ORAL ORDER

2 16-01-2015

This case indeed discloses the extent to which the provision of Section 498A, IPC has been misused and as to how the legal system was unkind to the petitioner.

On a complaint submitted against the petitioner by his wife, the police registered a case under Section 498A, IPC. He was arrested on 13.6.2013. The petitioner moved BP No. 81 of 2014 before the court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Danapur which was rejected on 28.5.2014. Therefore, this application.

Heard Mr. Uday Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Rita Verma, learned APP.

http://evinayak.tumblr.com https://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

For the past and one and-a-half years the petitioner is in prison. Even if he is held to be guilty of the offence alleged against him, the sentence cannot be that much.

This application is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, Patna, in connection with Complaint Case No. 1334 c of 2012.

(L. Narasimha Reddy,CJ)

mrl U

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

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

Mother of 20yr old son & 2 married daughtrs files 498A. Patna HC says ‘example of MISUSE’. Bail granted ! Extent of Misuse if un imaginable

Misuse of 498a is Rampant all over India. Trivial incidents are turned into criminal cases. Here is a woman with a 20 year old son and 2 married daughters who has a petty quarrel with her husband (husband asked money from Son !! ) and goes and files a 498a case !! The Husband is running for a bail ! Imagine the amount of lawyer’s fee that would be wasted the time wasted and the agony of going thru the process. Imagine the amount taxpayer money that is wasted on such false and frivolous cases. It’s equally sad that such women are NOT given strict punishment for wasting their lives and lives of others

******

Excerpts

“…Rs. 10,000/- was demanded by the petitioner from informant’s son that was opposed by the informant which resulted in an incident of assault ..” !!
“…No case under Section 498A is made out even after accepting the allegation …”
“…This case is an example that how the provision under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is misused….”

*************** CASE from public sources **********************

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                        Cr.Misc. No.25340 of 2010
                            BIPAT MISTRY
                                  Versus
                           STATE OF BIHAR
***********

2.

12.08.2010

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

No case under Section 498A is made out even after accepting the allegation that informant son is 20 years old, two daughters are married and Rs. 10,000/- was demanded by the petitioner from informant’s son that was opposed by the informant which resulted in an incident of assault took place and she received injury but not grievous in nature.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is allowed.

In the event of arrest or surrender within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order in connection with Ekangar Sarai P.S. Case No. 42 of 2010 above named, petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of A.C.J.M. Hilsa, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.

This case is an example that how the provision under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is misused.

( Mandhata Singh, J.)

Anand Kr.

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