Biswajit Kumar Singh vs The State of Jharkhand

Both the anticipatory bail applications are heard together as they arise from the same F.I.R. i.e. Azad Nagar P.S. Case No. 81 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 1497 of 2016, registered under Sections 406, 420, 498A, 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3 / 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, lodged on the basis of one written report given by Sana Mahtab alleging that she is aged about 20 years and she was married on 05.11.2015 according to Islamic rites with Dr. Naushad Akhtar Khan (petitioner in A.B.A. No. 4050 of 2016) at Jamshedpur and prior to marriage it is alleged that her father-in-law namely Dr. Abdul Quayum Khan (petitioner no. 1 in A.B.A. No. 2662 of 2016), her mother-in-law namely Mobina Khatoon (petitioner no. 2 in A.B.A. No. 2662 of 2016), her sister-in-law (nanad) namely Nasrin Begam and brother-in-law (dewar) namely Nayyar Iqbal Khan disclosed that the age of Naushad Akhtar Khan was about 38 years, working in Saudi Arabia and his monthly compensation package is Rs. 4,50,000/- and he has to return within one month. The father of the informant, who is a Advocate, has bear the expenses of the marriage and pursuant thereto thereafter she went to her sasural and handed over all the jewelries, but after some time all Sasural people and husband started putting pressure to bring Rs. 10,00,000/-for purchasing Skoda Vehicle. It is further alleged by the informant that in Sasural she came to know that her husband (petitioner in A.B.A. No. 4050 of 2016) had prior to marriage with the marriage with one girl of Gaya and thereafter they have taken divorce. This fact was concealed. On the basis of these allegations, the instant case was instituted.

Pursuant to issuance of notice, parties have appeared on 08.12.2016, possibility of reconciliation through the process of mediation was explored, but it failed. Case diary was called for, but the matter was heard on merits.

Learned counsel for the petitioners in A.B.A. No. 2662 of 2016 submitted that the petitioners are the in-laws of the informant and there is omnibus allegation leveled against them and they have been falsely implicated in this case, so they deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner in A.B.A. No. 4050 of 2016 submitted that it is incorrect to say that the petitioner did not inform that he was married earlier and concealed the fact of his earlier marriage and also relied on a registered certificate of marriage and he further submitted that the petitioner is aged about more than 38 years and this petitioner after taking Master''s Degree (M.D.) had gone to Saudi Arabia on 28.03.2014 and was employed as a doctor and was getting salary of Rs. 3,00,000/- and thereafter returned to India on 02.12.2014. In meanwhile, he met with an accident, so he could not go to Saudi Arabia and after marriage, the petitioner was residing separately with the informant in Choudhary Aakash Enclave and he did not go to Saudi Arabia. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. So, he deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail.

A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of informant bringing on record the Matrimonial Original Suit No. 237 of 2016, which was filed by petitioner -Naushad Akhtar Khan before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur under Section 281 of Mohammadan Law for restitution of Conjugal rites, where petitioner has mentioned his age about 45 years and occupation business. So, it is submitted that petitioner is in habit of concealing the facts and by duping informant.

Learned APP also appeared and opposed the prayer for bail.

From perusal of case diary, para-2, I.O. has recorded the

subsequent statement of Sana Mahtab, in para-8 I.O. has recorded the statement of Md. Sabir Ansari, in para-12 statement of Mehab Alam Khan, in para-13 statement of Mazda Mehtab, these all witnesses have supported the fact that how the informant was tortured and petitioner Naushad Akhtar Khan concealed his age and duped the informant. Further in para-61 the I.O. has recorded the statement of independent witness Md. Samir Ansari, in para-62 and para- 63 statements of Aslam Parwez and Md. Samsad, they all have supported the fact that Naushad Akhar Khan is not working in Saudi Arabia and they duped the informant and family members.

In the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to admit the petitioner - Naushad Akhtar Khan (petitioner in A.B.A. No. 4050 of 2016) on anticipatory. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.

However, petitioner - Dr. Naushad Akhtar Khan in A.B.A. No. 4050 of 2016, if so advised, may surrender in the court below and file regular bail application in the court below within three weeks, which shall be considered on its own merit.

So far anticipatory bail application of four petitioner namely Dr. Abdul Quayum Khan, Mobina Khatoon, Nasrin Begam and Nayyar Iqbal Khan (petitioners in A.B.A. No. 2662 of 2016) are concerned, I am inclined to admit the petitioners on anticipatory bail. The above named petitioners are directed to surrender in the Court below within three weeks from the date of this order and in the event of their arrest or surrender, the Court below shall enlarge the above named petitioners on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, in connection with Azad Nagar P.S. Case No. 81 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 1497 of 2016, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.