High CourtsSingle Bench

Birendra Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 10 February 2021 · Citation: (2021) 02 JH CK 0087

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438(2)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
A.B.A. No. 546 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

21 paragraphs · 407 words

Heard the parties.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sadar (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 18 of 2018.

The marriage of the informant was solemnized with the petitioner on 5.6.2017. It has been alleged that after sometime, there was a demand of

Rs.15,00,000/- and on non fulfilment of which she was subjected to torture and ultimately ousted from her matrimonial house on 12.12.2018.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 1.8.2018, the petitioner had filed a suit for dissolution of marriage, which was

admitted on 4.9.2018 and notices were ordered to be issued upon the informant. It has further been stated that consequent to the same, on 18.12.2018,

the FIR was instituted against eight family members including the petitioner who appears to be the husband of the informant.

Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and has stated that he has received instruction that

the petitioner has solemnized a second marriage and residing with his second wife at Hazaribagh. It has further been stated that direct allegation has

been levelled against the petitioner.

On consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the F.I.R., it appears that the allegations are

general and omnibus in nature so far as petitioner is concerned. It also appears to be an admitted fact that the suit for dissolution marriage was

preferred much before the institution of the F.I.R. So far as the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 regarding the

petitioner solemnizing a second marriage is concerned, the same was never alleged in the FIR and the assertions appear to be vague. Moreover, the

allegations against the petitioner are general and omnibus in nature.

Regard being had to the aforesaid facts, I am inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

The petitioner, named above, is accordingly directed to surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from today and in that event, he will

be enlarged on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- ( Ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned

A.C.J.M, Hazaribag in connection with Sadar (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 18 of 2018, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure.

This application stands allowed.