Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 115 (JHR)

Pawan Kumar v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-01-11

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

body2019
JUDGMENT Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. - Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 197 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No. 3265 of 2017 for the offence registered under Sections 420, 494 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Heard the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner files a certified copy of the depositions of opposite party no. 2 in Original Miscellaneous Case No. 101/2018 in the Family Court, at Jamshedpur dated 09.07.2018 wherein she has disclosed that her present address is her parents'' house i.e Holding No. 23, B/2, Sai Cottage Bhaalubasa, P.O. Agrico, P.S. Sitaramdera, Town Jamshedpur, District Singhbhum East. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notice was issued to the parents'' address of the opposite party no.2 and the registered post. A/D has returned with the endorsement that the door remains closed always and the notice through process server returned with the endorsement that the opposite party no. 2 has already vacated the flat on 07.04.2018 when the process server approached the opposite party no. 2. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that from this it is apparent that the opposite party no. 2 is avoiding service of the notice. Hence it is submitted that the notice to the opposite party no. 2 be waived. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the notice directed to be issued to the opposite party no. 2 is waived. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false and admittedly the petitioner has legally married with one Raju Bala four years prior to lodging of the First Information Report of the year 2018. Hence, obviously informant is not the wife of the petitioner, hence, no offence punishable under Sections 498A of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is made out against the petitioner. Hence, obviously informant is not the wife of the petitioner, hence, no offence punishable under Sections 498A of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is made out against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not the father of the baby, if any, of the informant and in Para 6 of the anticipatory application it has been volunteered by the petitioner to go for DNA sampling of the alleged baby which will expose the false allegation of the informant that the petitioner is the father of her baby, hence the informant is avoiding to appear in this case. 4. It is next submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation of the case. 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. 5. Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case where the petitioner, named above, be admitted to anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of this order, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 197 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No. 3265 of 2017 subject to the condition laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C., 1973 with further conditions: I. the petitioner will co-operate with the investigation, II. the petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed. Petition disposed of.