AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhash Chand, J
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
This anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the above-named applicant seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Marafari P.S. Case No. 102 of 2021, registered under Sections 498(A)/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro.
Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the F.I.R. of this case was lodged against six named accused including the applicant with these allegations that the complainant was married with Jitendra Kumar on 22.06.2021. After pregnancy, her husband had no concern with the complainant. Her brother-in-law Mukesh Kumar, Sister-in-law Manorma Devi, mother-in-law Uma Devi and father-in-law Rajdev Prasad all had snatched away her jewellery and made demand of Rs. 10,00,000/- and asked the complainant to come to the matrimonial house after fulfilling the said demand. The complainant is residing in her parental house and husband is having no concern with her and despite having called to him, he never talked to her.
Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the F.I.R. specific allegation is made against the other accused and not against the applicant, who is the husband and the applicant never made alleged demand of dowry or subjected her to cruelty and he has been implicated in this case with object to humiliate him on being arrested by the police.
Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State and the learned Counsel for the Informant vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and contended that specific allegations are made against other accused in regard to demand of dowry and for not fulfilling the same, the complainant was subjected to cruelty. In the complaint itself it has been alleged that husband of the informant is also having no concern with her and despite call, her husband never responded to her and even never asked in regard to whereabouts of her. As such he impliedly also supported to the other accused.
In view of the submissions made and the materials on record, no case of anticipatory bail is made out and hence the same is rejected.