Sujit Korwa vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Lily Sahay, learned A.P.P. None one appears on behalf of O.P. No.2 in spite of valid service of notice.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Chiniya P.S. Case No. 56 of 2019.

Marriage of the informant was solemnized with the petitioner on 22.4.2016. After marriage, there was a demand of Rs.1,00,000/-and on non fulfillment of which, she was subjected to torture.

It has been alleged that the petitioner and her mother in law had poured boiling water over the informant. The informant further alleges that after the petitioner got employment in police department, he started residing with a girl named Geeta Kumari and ultimately the informant was forced to leave her matrimonial house.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present case is a counter blast to the case instituted by the mother of the petitioner being Chinia P.S. Case No. 57 of 2019, in which the informant had figured as an accused. He has further submitted that after three months of the institution of the case by the mother of the petitioner, the present case has been lodged. He has also submitted that since the informant does not want to stay with the petitioner, he was constrained to file a suit for dissolution of marriage, which is still pending. Learned counsel also submits that although there is an allegation of pouring boiling water upon the informant, but no injury report has been brought on record to substantiate such allegations.

Learned A.P.P, has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The mother of the petitioner had earlier instituted a case and which has been brought on record and which on being referred to the police under section 356(iii) of Cr.P.C. same was instituted as Chinia P.S. Case No. 57 of 2019. So far as the allegations are concerned, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pouring of boiling water and burn injuries suffered by the informant, seems not to have been substantiated by any medical prescription/injury report. It also appears that the allegation of demand of Rs.1,00,000/-as dowry has been attributed to all the accused persons including the petitioner. The petitioner has already filed a suit for dissolution of marriage.

In view of the aforesaid facts, I am inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the order dated 10.01.2020 is hereby confirmed. This applications stands allowed.