Nahid Jamal vs State of Jharkhand And Anr

Mr. Dilip Kumar Chakraverty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far defect no.(ii) is concerned, the same may be ignored as older

notification and direction of the Court is there about ignoring the same due to pandemic. So far defect no.(i) is concerned, he submits that he has

already stated in para 1 about the Sections. In view of such submission, defect nos.(i) and (ii) are ignored. He submits that he will remove the defect

no.(iii) within two weeks after vacation. If the defect no.(iii) is not removed within the aforesaid period, office shall place the matter before

appropriate Bench.

Heard Mr. Dilip Kumar Chakraverty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Priya Shrestha, learned A.P.P. for the State.

This bail application has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising

due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been

heard.

The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Marafari P.S. Case No.71 of 2020 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 354, 504,

498(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro.

Mr. Dilip Kumar Chakraverty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is husband of informant. The marriage of informant was

solemnized on 31.05.2020 with petitioner. The compromise was made between the parties before the Gonda Police Station on 30.10.2020 as contained

in Annexure 2. Thereafter, the incident is said to be happened and the F.I.R. was lodged on 11.12.2020 after 41 days. In para 16, it has been stated

that the petitioner is ready to keep the informant with full honour and dignity but the informant is not ready to live with the petitioner. The petitioner is

in judicial custody since 01.04.2021.

Ms. Priya Shrestha, learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submits that there is allegation against the petitioner.

Regard being had to the attending facts and circumstances, I am inclined to enlarge the above named petitioner on bail, on furnishing bail bond of

Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,

Bokaro in connection with Marafari P.S. Case No.71 of 2020.