High CourtsSingle Bench

Md. Rashid vs State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 6 April 2021 · Citation: (2021) 04 JH CK 0021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 323, 498A, 506 · Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Section 3, 4 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438(2)
CASE NUMBER
A.B.A. No. 1320 Of 2021
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

11 paragraphs · 391 words

Heard the parties through video conferencing. Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects as pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown period is over.

In view of the personal undertaking of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Chandwa P.S. Case No. 124 of 2020 registered under sections 498A/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3/4 of the D.P. Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to implead the informant as opposite party no.2 in this anticipatory bail application.

Permission is accorded.

The petitioner is directed to incorporate the name of the informant as opposite party no.2 in this anticipatory bail application within one week after the lockdown period is over.

Let notice be issued to the newly impleaded opposite party no.2 under registered cover with A/D as well as under ordinary process for which requisites etc. must be filed within two weeks by the petitioner, failing which, this application shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the husband of the informant. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and are general and omnibus in nature. It is then submitted that because of marital discord between the petitioner and the informant, this false case has been foisted against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

The learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.

List this case on 15.06.2021.

Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am inclined to pass an interim order of anticipatory bail provisionally till 15.06.2021. In case of the petitioner being arrested by the police on or before 15.06.2021, he shall be released on bail provisionally on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the officer concerned in connection with Chandwa P.S. Case No. 124 of 2020 subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.