Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 631 (JHR)

Vijay Anand v. State of Jharkhand

2023-05-05

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Apprehending their arrest in connection with Chas Mahila P.S. Case No. 23 of 2022 instituted under Sections 493, 496, 376, 307, 379, 323, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, later on converted into Sections 498-A, 323, 506 and 504 of IPC, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail. 3. Both anticipatory bail applications arising out of same FIR, have been heard together. 4. In the present case, FIR depicts that the informant and the petitioner Vishal Anand developed intimacy with each other through matrimonial site “Shadi. Com.” It is alleged that petitioner Vishal Anand called upon the informant to Delhi in the year 2020 for solemnizing marriage with her and kept her in his house in the guise of marriage and sexually exploited for six months. At the time of said purported marriage, jewellery worth Rs.8.5 lakhs was presented to the informant by her parents. When she became pregnant, all petitioners drove her out from the matrimonial home after assaulting and snatching her ornaments and other belongings. On 19.11.2021, the informant gave birth to a female child at her parental home, then her husband Vishal Anand came to Bokaro and took all medical documents of delivery saying that he will get reimbursement of all medical expenses from his company. On 14.01.2022, Vishal Anand by persuading her father took the informant and her daughter to New Delhi where, she was asked to give her daughter to petitioner No.3-Vandana Anand. On refusal, she was assaulted at the hands of Vandana Anand(sister-in-law) with fists and legs and Vanita Anand(mother-in-law) also assaulted on her stomach by leg due to which blood started oozing from her private part. Further, informant’s husband broke her mobile phone and Vandana Anand started pressing her nose due to which she started gasping for breathe and somehow she saved her life and confined herself in a room bolting the door from inside. Further, the informant’s husband heavily struck the door due to which inside bolt was broken and assaulted her all over the night. On 30.01.2022, all petitioners called a cab and left her at Chatarpur Mandir in a pathetic condition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence at all rather they have been falsely implicated in this case. On 30.01.2022, all petitioners called a cab and left her at Chatarpur Mandir in a pathetic condition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence at all rather they have been falsely implicated in this case. All allegations levelled in in the FIR are entirely false and concocted story, which was lodged after six months of alleged occurrence without offering any explanation for such inordinate delay. Real fact is that the informant started pressurizing her husband to live separately and asked her mother-in-law’s landed property to be transferred in her name. No offence under Sections 493, 307 & 376 is constituted in the given set of facts. Marriage was solemnized in Arya Samaj Temple due to spread of Covid-19 pandemic. It was informant’s 2nd marriage after divorce, and she voluntarily visited with Vishal Anand on Shadi. Com site and entered into marriage. The informant first time left Delhi during her pregnancy. Petitioner-Vishal Anand met his wife and daughter just after delivery at Bokaro very cordially. It is further submitted that petitioner brought his wife and daughter to Delhi on 14.01.2022 but the informant created an ugly seen by quarrelling with her mother-in-law to transfer the house in her name and separation with family. The informant also poured boiled oil on the hands of her mother and father-in-law and took all her jewellery along with jewellery of mother-in-law and went to the house of her maternal uncle at Delhi. In this regard FIR was lodged(Annexure-S/E of supplementary affidavit) against the informant wife at Paschim Vihar West police Station. A notice under Section 41(A) of Cr.PC was served to informant in the month of June, 2022 at Bokaro, then she obtained legal brain from advocates and lodged this FIR against her husband and all family members as a counter blast to aforesaid case. It is further submitted that petitioners have complied the notice under Section 41(A) of Cr.PC and is co-operating in the investigation of the case and further undertake to co-operate with the investigation and abide by all terms and conditions imposed upon them. Hence, the petitioners may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail. 6. It is further submitted that petitioners have complied the notice under Section 41(A) of Cr.PC and is co-operating in the investigation of the case and further undertake to co-operate with the investigation and abide by all terms and conditions imposed upon them. Hence, the petitioners may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail. 6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners that they have brutally assaulted the informant and attempted to kill her. The petitioners-Vishal Anand without adopting any legal form of marriage, has sexually exploited the informant and impregnated her. It is further contended that petitioners have criminal antecedents of similar nature of offences, they are habitual offenders and he committed the same offence in earlier two cases, when ex-wives of Vishal Anand and her family lodged cases against the petitioners and in reply petitioners also lodged false cases against ex-wives of Vishal Anand. Eventually, under pressure, they compromised the cases. Petitioners have brutally assaulted the informant due to which she sustained several injuries(Annexure-A). In view of seeing the gravity of offence and past misconduct of petitioners, petitioners may not be extended privilege of anticipatory bail. 7. It appears that although FIR has been lodged by informant wife for heinous offences under Sections 376, 493, 496 and 307 of IPC, but during investigation I.O. has collected sufficient materials after verification of defence documents as well, showing prima facie offence under Sections 498-A, 323 and 504 of IPC. For the purpose of proper appreciation of allegations contained in the FIR entire episode has to be taken into account. It is admitted fact that informant’s marriage with petitioners took place in the form of Arya Samaj rituals in presence of parents and well-wishers of both parties and informant started discharging conjugal relationship with her husband at new matrimonial home. She returned to her parental home at Bokaro during pregnancy without any quarrel of any kind and delivered a female child. It is also admitted that her husband came to Bokaro to visit his wife and baby child at that time also there was no grievance of any kind. 8. She returned to her parental home at Bokaro during pregnancy without any quarrel of any kind and delivered a female child. It is also admitted that her husband came to Bokaro to visit his wife and baby child at that time also there was no grievance of any kind. 8. It further transpires that informant again went to her matrimonial home along with newly born baby, but she was not well treated and her child was being demanded by sister-in-law. As against counter allegation of husband is ill-treatment at the hands of wife with her mother and father-in-law and burning their hands by hot oil and commission of theft of jewellery by wife for which FIR was lodged in Delhi. It also appears that all allegations contained in FIR are alleged to happen at Delhi till 30.01.2022, but prior to lodging FIR at Bokaro on 26.06.2022, no complaint was ever lodged against petitioners by the informant before any Authority or to his own parents or well-wishers and no medical examination report for the occurrence of 29.01.2022 is filed. It appears that there are allegations and counter allegations showing haste decision by both parties in the matter of marriage without understanding each other. Both parties are divorcee prior to their present marriage. 9. Considering the overall aspects of the case as discussed above coupled with facts that petitioners have complied the notice under Section 41(A) of Cr.P.C. and co-operating in the investigation of the case, I feel inclined to extend privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to surrender in the Court within four weeks from today and in the event of their arrest or surrendering, they will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Bokaro in connection with Chas Mahila P.S. Case No. 23 of 2022 with the condition that they will co-operate with the investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and furnish their mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that they will not change their mobile number during the pendency of the case and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.