SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ranjeet vs State on 27 July, 2021

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9593/2021

1. Ranjeet S/o Dhanraj, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Nathvana
Tehsil Sangariya, District Hanumangarh.

2. Smt. Rekha W/o Ranjeet, Aged About 49 Years, R/o
Nathvana Tehsil Sangariya, District Hanumangarh.

—-Petitioners
Versus
State, Through Pp

—-Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shree Kant Verma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudhir Tak, PP
Mr. Kuldeep Sharma for complainant

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Order

27/07/2021

The bail application has been filed under Section 438 CrPC.

in connection with FIR No. 271/2021 registered at Police Station

Sangriya District Hanumangarh for the offences under Sections

498A, 406, 323, 420 read with Section 34 IPC whereupon the

investigation was commenced. Apprehending their arrest, the

petitioners moved the bail application before the court below,

which was dismissed. Hence, the bail application has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners are parents of the boy against whom the main

allegation is made by the prosecutrix.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the complainant

submits that the petitioners and their son committed fraud and

cheating and got marriage done knowing fully well that their son is

(Downloaded on 28/07/2021 at 08:36:35 PM)
(2 of 2) [CRLMB-9593/2021]

already married for the only purpose to obtain huge amount of

dowry. The amount paid in marriage has also not been recovered.

There is a specific demand made by the petitioner for further

dowry.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application.

Taking into consideration the overall aspects and that the

role of the petitioner cannot be said to be ignored about their

son’s earlier marriage, I am not inclined to grant benefit of

anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

The bail application is accordingly dismissed.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

109/Nitin

(Downloaded on 28/07/2021 at 08:36:35 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

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Your email address will not be published.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
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

Recent Comments

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2024 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 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…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation