Upendra Chudhary @ Upendra Chaudhary vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.

Mr. Suraj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.

In view of the personal undertaking given by 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 Manjhiaon P.S. case no. 83 of 2020 registered under Sections 304B of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the husband has committed dowry death of the deceased- Arti Devi, the daughter of the informant. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the deceased was suffering from mental disease and she was being treated by the Psychiatrist but the petitioner has no document to show that the deceased was under treatment of any Psychiatrist. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has died within seven years of her marriage otherwise than under natural circumstances by consuming poison and there is allegation so ill-treatment of deceased hence, it is submitted no offence punishable under section 304 B IPC is made out hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

The learned Addl. PP vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of forcing the deceased to bring money from her parents house and she died within seven years of her marriage otherwise than under natural circumstances, therefore, in view of serious allegation against the petitioner, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during investigation of the case, hence the petitioner ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the serious allegations against the petitioner as well as the requirement of his custodial interrogation during investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case, where the privilege of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.