Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sumit Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 April, 2016
MCRC-5117-2016
(SUMIT KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
28-04-2016
Shri Anil Khare, Senior Advocate with Shri Jasmeet Singh Hora, Advocate for a petitioner.
Shri Pradeep Gupta, Panel Lawyer for a respondent/State.
Heard on this initial focus for anticipatory bail underneath territory 438 of a Code of Criminal Procedure filed on seductiveness of postulant Sumit Kumar in Crime No.107/2015 purebred by Mahila Police Station, District-Bhopal, underneath sections 498-A and 506 review with territory 34 of a Indian Penal Code and territory 3 and 4 of a Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
As per charge case, postulant Sumit Kumar, who is formed in Maryland United States of America, married plant Jaya Sharma in a Court on 05-07-2014 by Hindu rites on 08-03-2014, during Bhopal. Victim’s mom Alka Sharma had given her house-hold equipment value Rs.10,00,000/- in a marriage. On 09-03-2014, a relatives of Sumit Kumar asked him not to take a plant to her matrimonial home during Gorakhpur until and unless her mom paid Rs.10,00,000/- in dowry. The mom of a plant was compelled to give Rs.4,00,000/- some-more in money on 10-03-2014. Thereafter, a plant was taken to Gorakhpur where a relatives of a postulant continued to harass and taunt her for dowry. Thereafter, a plant went to America with a postulant on 13-03-2014. Even in America, postulant Sumit Kumar kept badgering and violence her for dowry. On 01-05-2015, they returned to Gorakhpur. On 05-05-2015, she was sent to Bhopal. On 08-05-2015, postulant Sumit Kumar came to Bhopal and demanded Rs.10,00,000/- for removing some work finished in their residence during Bangalore. Even on that occasion, victim’s mom Alka Sharma paid Rs.4,00,000/- to postulant Sumit Kumar. Thereafter, petitioner’s relatives Narsingh and Pushpa told a plant on write that unless she brought Rs.10,00,000/-, she would not be certified in a matrimonial home. After that, she stayed with petitioner’s relatives during Gorakhpur between 23-05-2015 and 26-05-2015. When they returned to America, postulant took her to a alloy for a purpose of removing her announced mentally ill. The Doctor sent her to a preserve residence home, wherefrom she returned to India with a assistance of a Social Organisation and Indian Embassy in US.
Learned warn for a postulant submitted that he has filed papers of ICICI Bank in sequence to denote that distant from perfectionist dowry from Jaya Sharma, he had, in fact, eliminated about Rs. 1,00,000/- in a name of Alka Sharma, a mom of a victim, during a duration between 16-04-2015 and 04-07-2014. The postulant has also filed countless photographs of a disloyal integrate taken on several occasions in U.S., portraying ideal design of marital tranquillity and harmony. Copy of sequence antiquated 06-10-2015 display that Sumit had performed â??Limited Divorceâ? from a Circuit Court in Montgomery County, Maryland, U.S.A. has also been filed. Copy of another sequence antiquated 07-06-2015, dismissing a petition for wish of evidence, filed by plant Jaya Sharma before a same Court for protection, has also been filed. Documents and copies of E-mail have also been filed for display that a postulant took penetrating seductiveness in plant Jaya’s career as a dentist in U.S. and organised for her studies and her assemblage in several dental clinics. It has also been contended that as per focus submitted by a plant a postulant earns approximately Rs.2,00,00,000/- in U.S. In such a situation, a claim that he demanded Rs.10,00,000/- in dowry from a mom of a victim, who is a widow, is ridiculous.
In aforesaid circumstances, relying on a box of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273, schooled Senior Counsel for a postulant has prayed for anticipatory bail.
It might be remarkable here that Narsingh and Pushpa, relatives of a petitioner, have been postulated a advantage of anticipatory bail by sequence antiquated 23-12-2015 upheld in M.Cr.C.No.21163/2015 by this Court.
Learned Panel Lawyer for a respondent/State on a other hand, has opposite a focus on a belligerent that there are specific allegations of nuisance for dowry and cruelty opposite a petitioner. This is a box where an Indian bride was taken to U.S. and was subjected to cruelty for dowry. Keeping in perspective a contribution and resources of a box in their entirety, quite a papers filed by a postulant and a fact that custodial inquire does not seem to be necessary, as also a observations finished by a Apex Court in a box of Arnesh Kumar (supra) with courtesy to offences underneath territory 498-A of a Indian Penal Code and territory 4 of a Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, this Court is of a perspective that a applicant deserves a advantage of anticipatory bail.
Consequently, a focus is accordingly allowed. Now a doubt arises as to what conditions might be imposed in sequence to safeguard that a petitioner, who is admittedly formed in U.S., does not rush from justice. In this regard, schooled warn for a postulant has submitted that a postulant has a pursuit in U.S. and if his pass is destined to be deposited, he would remove his pursuit that would probably break his life. Relying on a visualisation rendered by a Apex Court in a box of Suresh Nanda vs. C.B.I., 2008 Cri.L.J. 1599 and by High Court of Chhattisgarh in a box of Pushpal Swarnkar vs. State of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Revision No.715/2008, it has been hold that a Court has no office to incarcerate a pass and it can usually be finished by a Passport Authority underneath territory 10(3) of a Passports Act, 1967. It has serve been prayed that brief of depositing a passport, a Court might levy any condition for ensuring co-operation of a postulant during review and trial. Keeping in perspective a aforesaid contentions, it is destined that in a eventuality of his arrest, a postulant shall be expelled on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and dual well-off sureties in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- any to a compensation of a Arresting Officer for his coming before a hearing Court on all dates and for complying with a conditions enumerated in underling territory (2) of territory 438 of a Code of Criminal Procedure. Certified duplicate as per rules.
(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE
Wife claims father earns 2 crores in USA, though demanded 10 lakhs as dowry from her mom !!!
///Learned warn for a postulant submitted that he has filed papers of ICICI Bank in sequence to denote that distant from perfectionist dowry from Jaya Sharma, he had, in fact, eliminated about Rs. 1,00,000/- in a name of Alka Sharma, a mom of a victim, during a duration between 16-04-2015 and 04-07-2014. The postulant has also filed countless photographs of a disloyal integrate taken on several occasions in U.S., portraying ideal design of marital tranquillity and harmony. Copy of sequence antiquated 06-10-2015 display that Sumit had performed â??Limited Divorceâ? from a Circuit Court in Montgomery County, Maryland, U.S.A. has also been filed. Copy of another sequence antiquated 07-06-2015, dismissing a petition for wish of evidence, filed by plant Jaya Sharma before a same Court for protection, has also been filed. Documents and copies of E-mail have also been filed for display that a postulant took penetrating seductiveness in plant Jaya’s career as a dentist in U.S. and organised for her studies and her assemblage in several dental clinics. It has also been contended that as per focus submitted by a plant a postulant earns approximately Rs.2,00,00,000/- in U.S. In such a situation, a claim that he demanded Rs.10,00,000/- in dowry from a mom of a victim, who is a widow, is ridiculous.////
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sumit Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 April, 2016
MCRC-5117-2016
(SUMIT KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
28-04-2016
Shri Anil Khare, Senior Advocate with Shri Jasmeet Singh Hora, Advocate for a petitioner.
Shri Pradeep Gupta, Panel Lawyer for a respondent/State.
Heard on this initial focus for anticipatory bail underneath territory 438 of a Code of Criminal Procedure filed on seductiveness of postulant Sumit Kumar in Crime No.107/2015 purebred by Mahila Police Station, District-Bhopal, underneath sections 498- A and 506 review with territory 34 of a Indian Penal Code and territory 3 and 4 of a Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
As per charge case, postulant Sumit Kumar, who is formed in Maryland United States of America, married plant Jaya Sharma in a Court on 05-07-2014 by Hindu rites on 08-03-2014, during Bhopal. Victim’s mom Alka Sharma had given her house-hold equipment value Rs.10,00,000/- in a marriage. On 09-03-2014, a relatives of Sumit Kumar asked him not to take a plant to her matrimonial home during Gorakhpur until and unless her mom paid Rs.10,00,000/- in dowry. The mom of a plant was compelled to give Rs.4,00,000/- some-more in money on 10-03-2014. Thereafter, a plant was taken to Gorakhpur where a relatives of a postulant continued to harass and taunt her for dowry. Thereafter, a plant went to America with a postulant on 13-03-2014. Even in America, postulant Sumit Kumar kept badgering and violence her for dowry. On 01-05-2015, they returned to Gorakhpur. On 05-05-2015, she was sent to Bhopal. On 08-05-2015, postulant Sumit Kumar came to Bhopal and demanded Rs.10,00,000/- for removing some work finished in their residence during Bangalore. Even on that occasion, victim’s mom Alka Sharma paid Rs.4,00,000/- to postulant Sumit Kumar. Thereafter, petitioner’s relatives Narsingh and Pushpa told a plant on write that unless she brought Rs.10,00,000/-, she would not be certified in a matrimonial home. After that, she stayed with petitioner’s relatives during Gorakhpur between 23-05-2015 and 26-05-2015. When they returned to America, postulant took her to a alloy for a purpose of removing her announced mentally ill. The Doctor sent her to a preserve residence home, wherefrom she returned to India with a assistance of a Social Organisation and Indian Embassy in US.
Learned warn for a postulant submitted that he has filed papers of ICICI Bank in sequence to denote that distant from perfectionist dowry from Jaya Sharma, he had, in fact, eliminated about Rs. 1,00,000/- in a name of Alka Sharma, a mom of a victim, during a duration between 16-04-2015 and 04-07-2014. The postulant has also filed countless photographs of a disloyal integrate taken on several occasions in U.S., portraying ideal design of marital tranquillity and harmony. Copy of sequence antiquated 06-10-2015 display that Sumit had performed â??Limited Divorceâ? from a Circuit Court in Montgomery County, Maryland, U.S.A. has also been filed. Copy of another sequence antiquated 07-06-2015, dismissing a petition for wish of evidence, filed by plant Jaya Sharma before a same Court for protection, has also been filed. Documents and copies of E-mail have also been filed for display that a postulant took penetrating seductiveness in plant Jaya’s career as a dentist in U.S. and organised for her studies and her assemblage in several dental clinics. It has also been contended that as per focus submitted by a plant a postulant earns approximately Rs.2,00,00,000/- in U.S. In such a situation, a claim that he demanded Rs.10,00,000/- in dowry from a mom of a victim, who is a widow, is ridiculous.
In aforesaid circumstances, relying on a box of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273, schooled Senior Counsel for a postulant has prayed for anticipatory bail.
It might be remarkable here that Narsingh and Pushpa, relatives of a petitioner, have been postulated a advantage of anticipatory bail by sequence antiquated 23-12-2015 upheld in M.Cr.C.No.21163/2015 by this Court.
Learned Panel Lawyer for a respondent/State on a other hand, has opposite a focus on a belligerent that there are specific allegations of nuisance for dowry and cruelty opposite a petitioner. This is a box where an Indian bride was taken to U.S. and was subjected to cruelty for dowry. Keeping in perspective a contribution and resources of a box in their entirety, quite a papers filed by a postulant and a fact that custodial inquire does not seem to be necessary, as also a observations finished by a Apex Court in a box of Arnesh Kumar (supra) with courtesy to offences underneath territory 498-A of a Indian Penal Code and territory 4 of a Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, this Court is of a perspective that a applicant deserves a advantage of anticipatory bail.
Consequently, a focus is accordingly allowed. Now a doubt arises as to what conditions might be imposed in sequence to safeguard that a petitioner, who is admittedly formed in U.S., does not rush from justice. In this regard, schooled warn for a postulant has submitted that a postulant has a pursuit in U.S. and if his pass is destined to be deposited, he would remove his pursuit that would probably break his life. Relying on a visualisation rendered by a Apex Court in a box of Suresh Nanda vs. C.B.I., 2008 Cri.L.J. 1599 and by High Court of Chhattisgarh in a box of Pushpal Swarnkar vs. State of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Revision No.715/2008, it has been hold that a Court has no office to incarcerate a pass and it can usually be finished by a Passport Authority underneath territory 10(3) of a Passports Act, 1967. It has serve been prayed that brief of depositing a passport, a Court might levy any condition for ensuring co-operation of a postulant during review and trial. Keeping in perspective a aforesaid contentions, it is destined that in a eventuality of his arrest, a postulant shall be expelled on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and dual well-off sureties in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- any to a compensation of a Arresting Officer for his coming before a hearing Court on all dates and for complying with a conditions enumerated in underling territory (2) of territory 438 of a Code of Criminal Procedure. Certified duplicate as per rules.
(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE