CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Baldeo Das And Ors vs State of Jharkhand And Ors

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 10 August 2020 · Citation: (2020) 08 JH CK 0040

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438(2)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
A.B.A No. 2020 of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

19 paragraphs · 368 words

Defects as pointed out by the office are ignored.

Heard Mr. Lalit Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Pramod Kumar Jha, learned

counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2.

The petitioners have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail, as they are apprehending their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 715 of 2019,

corresponding to T. R. No. 2054 of 2019.

It has been alleged that the petitioner no. 2 on the pretext of solemnizing marriage with the complainant had established physical relationship with her.

The marriage was ultimately fixed and Rs. 1,00,000/- was given to the father of the complainant (petitioner no. 1) but later on since the demand of a

Bolero vehicle and cash of Rs. 5,00,000/- could not be fulfilled, the petitioner no. 2 refused to solemnize marriage.

It appears that the main allegation has been levelled against the petitioner no. 2 who was supposed to marry the complainant but had backed out on

account of non-fulfillment of the demand which was raised by the accused.

However, as regards the petitioner no. 1 is concerned, he happens to be the father of the petitioner no. 2 and there is nothing on record which would

suggest that an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was handed over to the petitioner no. 1.

In view of the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner no. 2, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner no.

2.

The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner no. 2 is, hereby, rejected.

However, so far as the petitioner no. 1 is concerned, he is directed to surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from today and on

such surrender, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount

each, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar in connection with Complaint Case No. 715 of 2019, corresponding to T. R. No.

2054 of 2019, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

This application stands disposed of.