MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

NRI gets Anticipatory bail sections 498A

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.

See also  If there is no Domestic Violence can Court Grant Maintenance to Wife in Domestic Violence case?

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.////

See also  State’s appeal on 498A, 302 Acquital dismissed. Some material and cogent evidence is must for conviction

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.

See also  DV Quash : Filing DV After Divorce is Abuse of the process of Law

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine


All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Important SC/HC Judgements on 498A IPC
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

CopyRight @ MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, though No Lawyer will give we Advice like We do

Please review Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You determine afterwards Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We hoop Women Centric inequitable laws like False Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

See also  How to Appreciate evidence if there is variation in the narration of incident by two witnesses or between two statements of the same witness?
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation