Tag Archives: bail granted

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’

Advertisements

#NRI #husband gets #Anticipatory #bail . Wife claims dowry & torture, husband shows proof of PAYING her mother thru bank!!

#NRI #husband gets #Anticipatory #bail . Wife claims dowry & torture, husband shows proof of PAYING her mother Rs. 100000 thru bank!!

Wife claims husband earns 2 crores in USA, but demanded 10 lakhs as dowry from her mother 😦 😦 !!!

The case shows that

] ///Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has filed
] documents of ICICI Bank in order to demonstrate that far from
] demanding dowry from Jaya Sharma, he had, in fact, transferred about
] Rs. 1,00,000/- in the name of Alka Sharma, the mother of the victim,
] during the period between 16-04-2015 and 04-07-2014. The petitioner
] has also filed numerous photographs of the estranged couple taken on
] various occasions in U.S., portraying perfect picture of marital
] bliss and harmony. Copy of order dated 06-10-2015 showing that Sumit
] had obtained â??Limited Divorceâ? from a Circuit Court in Montgomery
] County, Maryland, U.S.A. has also been filed. Copy of another order
] dated 07-06-2015, dismissing a petition for want of evidence, filed
] by victim Jaya Sharma before the same Court for protection, has also
] been filed. Documents and copies of E-mail have also been filed for
] showing that the petitioner took keen interest in victim Jaya’s
] career as a dentist in U.S. and arranged for her studies and her
] attendance in various dental clinics. It has also been contended that
] as per application submitted by the victim the petitioner earns
] approximately Rs.2,00,00,000/- in U.S. In such a situation, the
] allegation that he demanded Rs.10,00,000/- in dowry from the mother
] of the victim, who is a widow, is ridiculous.////
]

 

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sumit Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 April, 2016

MCRC-5117-2016

(SUMIT KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

28-04-2016

Shri Anil Khare, Senior Advocate with Shri Jasmeet Singh Hora, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Pradeep Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on this first application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner Sumit Kumar in Crime No.107/2015 registered by Mahila Police Station, District-Bhopal, under sections 498- A and 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

As per prosecution case, petitioner Sumit Kumar, who is based in Maryland United States of America, married victim Jaya Sharma in the Court on 05-07-2014 by Hindu rites on 08-03-2014, at Bhopal. Victim’s mother Alka Sharma had given her house-hold items worth Rs.10,00,000/- in the marriage. On 09-03-2014, the parents of Sumit Kumar asked him not to take the victim to her matrimonial home at Gorakhpur until and unless her mother paid Rs.10,00,000/- in dowry. The mother of the victim was constrained to give Rs.4,00,000/- more in cash on 10-03-2014. Thereafter, the victim was taken to Gorakhpur where the parents of the petitioner continued to harass and taunt her for dowry. Thereafter, the victim went to America with the petitioner on 13-03-2014. Even in America, petitioner Sumit Kumar kept harassing and beating her for dowry. On 01-05-2015, they returned to Gorakhpur. On 05-05-2015, she was sent to Bhopal. On 08-05-2015, petitioner Sumit Kumar came to Bhopal and demanded Rs.10,00,000/- for getting some work done in their house at Bangalore. Even on that occasion, victim’s mother Alka Sharma paid Rs.4,00,000/- to petitioner Sumit Kumar. Thereafter, petitioner’s parents Narsingh and Pushpa told the victim on telephone that unless she brought Rs.10,00,000/-, she would not be admitted in the matrimonial home. After that, she stayed with petitioner’s parents at Gorakhpur between 23-05-2015 and 26-05-2015. When they returned to America, petitioner took her to a doctor for the purpose of getting her declared mentally ill. The Doctor sent her to a shelter house home, wherefrom she returned to India with the help of a Social Organisation and Indian Embassy in US.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has filed documents of ICICI Bank in order to demonstrate that far from demanding dowry from Jaya Sharma, he had, in fact, transferred about Rs. 1,00,000/- in the name of Alka Sharma, the mother of the victim, during the period between 16-04-2015 and 04-07-2014. The petitioner has also filed numerous photographs of the estranged couple taken on various occasions in U.S., portraying perfect picture of marital bliss and harmony. Copy of order dated 06-10-2015 showing that Sumit had obtained â??Limited Divorceâ? from a Circuit Court in Montgomery County, Maryland, U.S.A. has also been filed. Copy of another order dated 07-06-2015, dismissing a petition for want of evidence, filed by victim Jaya Sharma before the same Court for protection, has also been filed. Documents and copies of E-mail have also been filed for showing that the petitioner took keen interest in victim Jaya’s career as a dentist in U.S. and arranged for her studies and her attendance in various dental clinics. It has also been contended that as per application submitted by the victim the petitioner earns approximately Rs.2,00,00,000/- in U.S. In such a situation, the allegation that he demanded Rs.10,00,000/- in dowry from the mother of the victim, who is a widow, is ridiculous.

In aforesaid circumstances, relying upon the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail.

It may be noted here that Narsingh and Pushpa, parents of the petitioner, have been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail by order dated 23-12-2015 passed in M.Cr.C.No.21163/2015 by this Court.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand, has opposed the application on the ground that there are specific allegations of harassment for dowry and cruelty against the petitioner. This is a case where an Indian bride was taken to U.S. and was subjected to cruelty for dowry. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the documents filed by the petitioner and the fact that custodial interrogation does not appear to be necessary, as also the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) with regard to offences under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Consequently, the application is accordingly allowed. Now the question arises as to what conditions may be imposed in order to ensure that the petitioner, who is admittedly based in U.S., does not flee from justice. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has a job in U.S. and if his passport is directed to be deposited, he would lose his job which would virtually shatter his life. Relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Suresh Nanda vs. C.B.I., 2008 Cri.L.J. 1599 and by High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Pushpal Swarnkar vs. State of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Revision No.715/2008, it has been held that the Court has no jurisdiction to impound the passport and it can only be done by the Passport Authority under section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967. It has further been prayed that short of depositing the passport, the Court may impose any condition for ensuring co-operation of the petitioner during investigation and trial. Keeping in view the aforesaid contentions, it is directed that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and two solvent sureties in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for his appearance before the trial Court on all dates and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub section (2) of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Certified copy as per rules.

(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE

Wife claims husband earns 2 crores in USA, but demanded 10 lakhs as dowry from her mother 😦 😦 !!!

 

///Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has filed documents of ICICI Bank in order to demonstrate that far from demanding dowry from Jaya Sharma, he had, in fact, transferred about Rs. 1,00,000/- in the name of Alka Sharma, the mother of the victim, during the period between 16-04-2015 and 04-07-2014. The petitioner has also filed numerous photographs of the estranged couple taken on various occasions in U.S., portraying perfect picture of marital bliss and harmony. Copy of order dated 06-10-2015 showing that Sumit had obtained â??Limited Divorceâ? from a Circuit Court in Montgomery County, Maryland, U.S.A. has also been filed. Copy of another order dated 07-06-2015, dismissing a petition for want of evidence, filed by victim Jaya Sharma before the same Court for protection, has also been filed. Documents and copies of E-mail have also been filed for showing that the petitioner took keen interest in victim Jaya’s career as a dentist in U.S. and arranged for her studies and her attendance in various dental clinics. It has also been contended that as per application submitted by the victim the petitioner earns approximately Rs.2,00,00,000/- in U.S. In such a situation, the allegation that he demanded Rs.10,00,000/- in dowry from the mother of the victim, who is a widow, is ridiculous.////

 

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sumit Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 April, 2016

MCRC-5117-2016

(SUMIT KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

 

28-04-2016

Shri Anil Khare, Senior Advocate with Shri Jasmeet Singh Hora, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Pradeep Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on this first application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner Sumit Kumar in Crime No.107/2015 registered by Mahila Police Station, District-Bhopal, under sections 498- A and 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

As per prosecution case, petitioner Sumit Kumar, who is based in Maryland United States of America, married victim Jaya Sharma in the Court on 05-07-2014 by Hindu rites on 08-03-2014, at Bhopal. Victim’s mother Alka Sharma had given her house-hold items worth Rs.10,00,000/- in the marriage. On 09-03-2014, the parents of Sumit Kumar asked him not to take the victim to her matrimonial home at Gorakhpur until and unless her mother paid Rs.10,00,000/- in dowry. The mother of the victim was constrained to give Rs.4,00,000/- more in cash on 10-03-2014. Thereafter, the victim was taken to Gorakhpur where the parents of the petitioner continued to harass and taunt her for dowry. Thereafter, the victim went to America with the petitioner on 13-03-2014. Even in America, petitioner Sumit Kumar kept harassing and beating her for dowry. On 01-05-2015, they returned to Gorakhpur. On 05-05-2015, she was sent to Bhopal. On 08-05-2015, petitioner Sumit Kumar came to Bhopal and demanded Rs.10,00,000/- for getting some work done in their house at Bangalore. Even on that occasion, victim’s mother Alka Sharma paid Rs.4,00,000/- to petitioner Sumit Kumar. Thereafter, petitioner’s parents Narsingh and Pushpa told the victim on telephone that unless she brought Rs.10,00,000/-, she would not be admitted in the matrimonial home. After that, she stayed with petitioner’s parents at Gorakhpur between 23-05-2015 and 26-05-2015. When they returned to America, petitioner took her to a doctor for the purpose of getting her declared mentally ill. The Doctor sent her to a shelter house home, wherefrom she returned to India with the help of a Social Organisation and Indian Embassy in US.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has filed documents of ICICI Bank in order to demonstrate that far from demanding dowry from Jaya Sharma, he had, in fact, transferred about Rs. 1,00,000/- in the name of Alka Sharma, the mother of the victim, during the period between 16-04-2015 and 04-07-2014. The petitioner has also filed numerous photographs of the estranged couple taken on various occasions in U.S., portraying perfect picture of marital bliss and harmony. Copy of order dated 06-10-2015 showing that Sumit had obtained â??Limited Divorceâ? from a Circuit Court in Montgomery County, Maryland, U.S.A. has also been filed. Copy of another order dated 07-06-2015, dismissing a petition for want of evidence, filed by victim Jaya Sharma before the same Court for protection, has also been filed. Documents and copies of E-mail have also been filed for showing that the petitioner took keen interest in victim Jaya’s career as a dentist in U.S. and arranged for her studies and her attendance in various dental clinics. It has also been contended that as per application submitted by the victim the petitioner earns approximately Rs.2,00,00,000/- in U.S. In such a situation, the allegation that he demanded Rs.10,00,000/- in dowry from the mother of the victim, who is a widow, is ridiculous.

In aforesaid circumstances, relying upon the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail.

It may be noted here that Narsingh and Pushpa, parents of the petitioner, have been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail by order dated 23-12-2015 passed in M.Cr.C.No.21163/2015 by this Court.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand, has opposed the application on the ground that there are specific allegations of harassment for dowry and cruelty against the petitioner. This is a case where an Indian bride was taken to U.S. and was subjected to cruelty for dowry. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the documents filed by the petitioner and the fact that custodial interrogation does not appear to be necessary, as also the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) with regard to offences under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Consequently, the application is accordingly allowed. Now the question arises as to what conditions may be imposed in order to ensure that the petitioner, who is admittedly based in U.S., does not flee from justice. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has a job in U.S. and if his passport is directed to be deposited, he would lose his job which would virtually shatter his life. Relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Suresh Nanda vs. C.B.I., 2008 Cri.L.J. 1599 and by High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Pushpal Swarnkar vs. State of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Revision No.715/2008, it has been held that the Court has no jurisdiction to impound the passport and it can only be done by the Passport Authority under section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967. It has further been prayed that short of depositing the passport, the Court may impose any condition for ensuring co-operation of the petitioner during investigation and trial. Keeping in view the aforesaid contentions, it is directed that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and two solvent sureties in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for his appearance before the trial Court on all dates and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub section (2) of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Certified copy as per rules.

(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE

Grant me bail as I’m MLA! What about normal citizen accused of #false498a #falseRape ?

A court @ Delhi, granted bail to Aam Aadmi Party’s Delhi legislator Dinesh Mohaniya, on Wednesday , June 29 2016,

Dinesh Mohaniya was arrested on the charge of “sexual harassment”

In his bail plea, Mohaniya said he is a sitting legislator and would not flee from justice !!!!

He also said that he has been falsely implicated.

Screenshot - 30_06_2016 , 14_17_10.png

11 months Jail for a FALSE rape case AFTER girl eloped. Falsity apparent says Allahabad HC & grants bail

  • Girl seems to have voluntarily eloped with the boy
  • however, claiming that the girl is only 16 years old a rape case is filed and the boy incarcerated since 08. July 2015 !! (approx 11 months)
  • Court notices and states the following “…. allegation of rape against the applicant but the same has not been corroborated by any medical evidence and surrounding circumstances is totally belies the prosecution case as well as statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Her medical report does not show any mark of injury, violence or sexual assault. He further submits that it is not a case of taking away or enticing away the prosecutrix as from a perusal of her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it is apparent that she has voluntarily eloped with the applicant. The applicant has no criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 8.7.2015. The falsity of the case is apparent from the fact that the Nana and Baba of the applicant have also been implicated in the present case….”

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH

Court No. – 4

Case :- BAIL No. – 4796 of 2016

Applicant :- Vimlesh Katheriya

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Jairam Bharti
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

Hon’ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

Heard Sri Jairam Bharti, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Sushma Shukla, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as per medical opinion, prosecutrix is 16 years. The law is settled that the margin of error in ascertaining the age by radiological examination is two years on either side and hence the possibility of the prosecutrix being major cannot be ruled out. Although, she has made an allegation of rape against the applicant but the same has not been corroborated by any medical evidence and surrounding circumstances is totally belies the prosecution case as well as statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Her medical report does not show any mark of injury, violence or sexual assault. He further submits that it is not a case of taking away or enticing away the prosecutrix as from a perusal of her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it is apparent that she has voluntarily eloped with the applicant. The applicant has no criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 8.7.2015. The falsity of the case is apparent from the fact that the Nana and Baba of the applicant have also been implicated in the present case.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

Let the applicant Vimlesh Katheriya involved in Case Crime No. 587 of 2015 under sections 323, 342, 363, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, police station Mishrikh, District Sitapur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions.

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 14.6.2016

shiraz

Visit http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/StartWebSearch.do for more Judgments/Orders delivered at Allahabad High Court and Its Bench at Lucknow.


—————————-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 (this one is from Allahabad HC website). 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.

Patna HC : 15 Lakhs for a bail! How 498A bail proceedings go for mediation & end in alimony payment!

  • Husband files matrimonial suit on 14.05.2013 for dissolution of marriage
  • Wife appears on 18.02.2014 and thereafter a complaint is filed on 11.03.2014 !!, for offenses punishable u/s 498A of IPC
  • Husband apprehending arrest in this 498a case seeks bail.
  • He is granted bail on the condition of payment of Rs. 15 Lakhs as alimony !
  • This is JUST at the time of bail, meaning obviously the 498a case has NOT proceeded to evidence, inquiry or trial!.
  • Also, If you wonder as to how alimony is a pre condition for a bail, how alimony is decided in a criminal case, let me tell you that makes it two of us wondering on the state of marriages in India!
  • However numerous cases are coming to fore where mere bail applications are converted to alimony payments and / or settlement negotiations.
  • Obviously, this happens before the dowry case is decided on merits, though alimony is to be decided by a civil court on different parameters, and criminal courts handling bail are NOT expected to decide alimony !!
  • Under the fear of arrest, under fear of loosing their jobs, men are forced to pay thru their nose !!

 


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.51240 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -643 Year- 2014 Thana -MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District-MUZAFFARPUR


  • Dr. Mukesh Kumar S/o Yadunandan Prasad R/o Mohalla Friends Colony,
    Road No. 3, P.S. Rajiv Nagar, District Patna …. …. Petitioner/s

Versus

  • 1. The State of Bihar
  • 2. Priyadarshini Wife of Dr Mukesh Kumar, D/o Sri Umesh Kumar R/o
    Mohalla Bahal Khana Road, Chhoti Kalyani, P.S.Town, P.O. Ramna,
    District Muzaffarpur at present Amudh Vinayak medical College, 1st
    year P.G. Dept of Radiology Cuddalore, Main Road, Edumbakka,
    Pudduchery 607402 … …. Opposite Party/s

Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rudal Prasad
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. P.K.Choursiya(App)


CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH

ORAL ORDER

05/ 26-06-2015

Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.

The petitioner being the husband of the complainant is apprehending his arrest in a complaint case wherein processes have been directed to be issued after cognizance being taken for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

The basic accusation is of torture.

The marriage between the petitioner and the complainant being performed on 18.04.2012 having no issue is admitted fact. Petitioner and the complainant are present.

The petitioner filed Matrimonial Suit No. 382 of 2013 on 14.05.2013 for dissolution of the marriage in which complainant appeared 18.02.2014 and thereafter the present complaint has been filed on 11.03.2014. The conciliation also not appear to be feasible at present. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

Both the petitioner and the complainant agree to part ways on payment of permanent alimony of Rs.15,00,000/- (Fifteen lakhs) within a period of one year. The offer of the petitioner to make such payment is acceptable to the complainant who is present in the Court.

Considering the present stand of the parties, let the above named petitioner be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of twelve weeks from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur in connection with Complaint Case No. 643 of 2014, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

The bail of the petitioner will be accepted on deposit of Rs.3,00,000/- (Three lakhs) at the time of executing of bail bond and the rest amount of Rs.12,00,000/- (Twelve lakhs) in three-four monthly installments of four lakhs each. The same will be deposited before the learned court below through bank draft. The first installment of three lakhs will be released in favour of the complainant on filing an application in Matrimonial Suit No. 382 of 2013 by both the parties under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is expected from learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna to dispose of the Matrimonial Suit No. 382 of 2013 expeditiously.

The complainant will also file an appropriate application in Complaint Case No. 643 of 2014 before the learned court below to the effect that the issue has been reconciled between the parties and it is expected from learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur to dispose of Complaint Case No. 643 of 2014 expeditiously.

The last three installments shall be deposited by the petitioner through bank draft before the learned court below within the time frame stipulated above which will be released to the complainant within one week of passing of the decree in matrimonial suit. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) DKS/-

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