Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 798 (JHR)

Md. Hedayat v. State of Jharkhand

2023-06-21

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2023
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Keredari P.S. Case No. 92 of 2013 (S.T. Case No. 431 of 2014) instituted under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence rather he was residing Saudi Arabia. The wife of petitioner died on 30.12.2013 after 12 years of marriage and they were leading happy conjugal life. No specific overt act has been attributed against the petitioner. It is further submitted that after completion of investigation, petitioner was not sent up for trial and his other family members who faced trial and have been acquitted vide judgment dated 23.04.2018 passed in S.T. No. 431 of 2014 and S.T. No. 96 of 2015. It is further submitted that petitioner was also summoned in the above Sessions Trial case under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. which was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court in Cr. M.P. No. 421 of 2018 which was dismissed on 20.06.2022. In the meantime, process under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. were issued against the petitioner in the year 2019 after dismissal of Cr. M.P. No. 421 of 2018. Petitioner also filed Cr. M.P. No. 2646 of 2022 to set aside the said order against process 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. and the same was allowed on 12.09.2022. Thereafter, this anticipatory bail application was filed. It is further submitted that petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he has two minor children, and there is no caretaker of them except petitioner. If the petitioner is arrested in this case them life of his children will be ruined. Petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there are direct and serious allegations against the petitioner showing his involvement in the alleged offence of dowry death. Petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there are direct and serious allegations against the petitioner showing his involvement in the alleged offence of dowry death. It is further submitted that petitioner is not co-operating with the investigation of the case and deliberately delaying the trial one way or the other showing no regard to the court’s order. Hence, petitioner may not be extended privilege of anticipatory bail. 5. It appears that the marriage of informant’s daughter was solemnized with present petitioner 12 years ago. After two years’ of marriage, the informant’s daughter was subjected to physical and mental cruelty at the hands of petitioner and his other family members, due to non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry in the shape of one motorcycle and Rs. 20,000/- and at the ends, the informant’s daughter died on 30.12.2023. It appears that petitioner was summoned under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. but he did not appear before the trial court rather has instituted Cr. M.P. for quashing of the order after dismissal of the same, he did not surrender before the court. Meanwhile, process under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. was issued and he again moved the Hon’ble High Court for quashing the same. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of allegation against petitioner coupled with materials available on record and in view of the conduct of petitioner indicates the high handedness in affecting the investigation and trial of the case, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer of anticipatory bail application of petitioner is rejected. 7. Petitioner is directed to surrender before the court below and prays for regular bail, the learned court below shall consider the same on its own merits, without being prejudiced by this order.