Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 283 (JHR)

Kamil Khan v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-02-09

ANANT BIJAY SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT Anant Bijay Singh, J. - The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with C.P. Case No. 3212 of 2013, the case registered under Sections 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Pursuant to order dated 23.09.2016, both the parties are physically present before this court. 3. It appears that on 23.09.2016, petitioner no. 1, Kamil Khan who is father-in-law of O.P. No. 2 had informed this court that his son Shadab Khan, who is husband of O.P. No. 2 is residing at Saudi Arabia, failed to appear before the Principal Judge Family Court, Dhanbad in a maintenance case and Principal Judge allowed maintenance @ Rs. 3,000/- per month to O.P. No. 2 and Rs. 1,000/- to her minor daughter from the date of filing of the application. It was informed by the O.P. No. 2 that the aforesaid order was not complied with by the petitioner No. 1 Kamil Khan. On that date petitioner no. 1 father-in-law of O.P. No. 2 was directed to pay ad interim maintenance @ Rs. 3,000/- per month from August, 2016 to O.P. No. 2 and he was further directed to deposit the arrears thereof from August to October, 2016 latest by 09.11.2016 in the trial court. The trial court was directed to release the aforesaid amount in favour of O.P. No. 2 on proper verification. Petitioner was also directed to pay ad interim maintenance to O.P. No. 2 by tenth day of each month till disposal of the case. The case was adjourned to 08.12.2016 and the parties were directed to remain physically present before this court. 4. On 08.12.2016, O.P. No. 2 was present but petitioner no. 1 was absent. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that parties have agreed for one time settlement, whereby petitioner was ready to pay Rs. 6,20,000/- to O.P. No. 2 and O.P. No. 2 was also agree for the said amount. 5. After taking instruction from the petitioner, learned counsel has submitted that petitioner is ready to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- by way of demand draft and remaining amount i.e. Rs. 2,20,000/- would be paid within two months. The case was adjourned to 20.01.2017. 6. On 20.01.2017, petitioner no. 1 and O.P. No. 2 alongwith their counsels were physically present before this court. 7. Petitioner No. 1 submitted that he is ready to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- by way of demand draft and remaining amount i.e. Rs. 2,20,000/- would be paid within two months. The case was adjourned to 20.01.2017. 6. On 20.01.2017, petitioner no. 1 and O.P. No. 2 alongwith their counsels were physically present before this court. 7. Petitioner No. 1 submitted that he is ready to pay Rs. 6,20,000/- to O.P. No. 2 and he has brought a bank draft of Rs. 2,20,000/-. 8. On query, learned counsel for the parties submitted that since O.P. No. 2 wants agreement with her husband but husband of O.P. No. 2 has gone to Saudi Arabia, hence the agreement cannot be worked out in his absence. 9. In that view of the matter, the case was adjourned to 09.02.2017 for further hearing on merit. 10. Today, when the case is called out, learned counsel for the petitioner while referring S.A. of complainant submitted that there is omnibus allegation against the petitioner no. 1, father-in-law of O.P. No. 2 and mother-in-law of O.P. No. 2. It is further submitted that since the place where the occurrence took place is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of Dhanbad Court, petitioners deserve to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 11. Learned A.P.P while opposing the prayer for bail of the petitioners submitted that petitioner no. 1 who is father-in-law of O.P. No. 2 although agreed to pay Rs. 6,20,000/- to O.P. No. 2 as one time settlement but later on instead of giving Rs. 4,00,000/- by way of demand draft only brought bank draft of Rs. 2,20,000/- and he could not procured the appearance of his son Shadab Khan, husband of O.P. No. 2, due to which settlement could not be finalized. Hence, petitioners do not deserve anticipatory bail. 12. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, the petitioner No. 2, Bulbul, who is mother-in-law of O.P. No. 2 is a lady and she has no concern with the amicable settlement between the parties by way of one time settlement, she is directed to surrender in the Court below within four weeks from the date of this order and in the event of her arrest or surrender the Court below shall enlarge the petitioner No. 2, namely, Bulbul wife of petitioner no. 1, namely, Kamil Khan on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 1, namely, Kamil Khan on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M., 1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with C.P. Case No. 3212 of 2013, subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 13. So far, petitioner no. 1, namely, Kamil Khan, father-in-law of O.P No. 2 is concerned, he is the main culprit of the whole episode, I am not inclined to enlarge petitioner no. 1 on anticipatory bail. 14. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner no. 1, namely, Kamil Khan is hereby rejected.