SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Subhash Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 28 February, 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58004 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-137 Year-2019 Thana- KATIHAR MUFFASIL District- Katihar

Subhash Kumar Son of Ramesh Jha Resident of Village-Satgarha, Police
Station-Jokihat, District-Araria, at present address C/o UCO Bank at village-
Geharwin, P.O.-Geharwin, District-Bilashpur (Himachal Pradesh).

… … Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Shweta Jha Wife of Subhash Kumar and Daughter of Upendra Mohan Jha
Resident of Village-Satgarha, Police Station-Jokihat, District-Araria, at
present residing at village Rampur, P.O.-Dalan, Police Station-Katihar
(Muffasil), District-Katihar.

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Dr Amrendra Kumar, Advocate
Mr.Mukesh Kumar Rana, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Binay Kumar Singh, Advoate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Narsingh Tanti, APP

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER

6 28-02-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned APP for the

State.

The petitioner has filed the instant application for

anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with

Mufassil P.S Case no. 137 of 2019 registered for the offence

under sections 323, 506, 313 and 498A of the Indian Penal

Code and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

As per the allegation in the FIR, the opposite party

no. 2 was married to the petitioner on 8.6.2014 and in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58004 of 2019(6) dt.28-02-2020
2/5

marriage a sum of Rs. 14 lacs was given by way of dowry. It is

stated that the petitioner was already in a relationship with one

Renu Kumari Nagarwal and he started to treat the opposite party

no. 2 as a minting machine to fetch money. The opposite party

no. 2 got a scent that the petitioner was not loyal to her. She was

asked by her husband’s sister to provide money by way of

dowry and on refusal to give the same, she was beaten up by

the petitioner and inflicted cruelties. The demand of dowry was

for purchasing a flat. It is stated that the petitioner filed a

matrimonial suit for dissolution of marriage which also

amounted cruelty.

It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner

that the allegations levelled by the informant were false and

concocted. The petitioner was posted as a Senior Manager in

the UCO Bank at Shimla in Himachal Pradesh and was

humiliated by the informant. It was further submitted that he

filed a Matrimonial Suit on 19.1.2019 in the Court of the

Principal Judge, Family Court, Katihar which was registered as

Matrimonial Case no. 40 of 2019 praying therein for a decree of

divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act by

dissolution of marriage. It is submitted that much after filing of

the said divorce suit on 19.1.2019, the opposite party no. 2 filed
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58004 of 2019(6) dt.28-02-2020
3/5

the complaint on 25.4.2019 which was registered as Complaint

Case no. 509 of 2019 and ultimately an FIR was registered

being Mufassil P.S. Case no. 137 of 2019 (District Katihar).

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the

opposite party no. 2. It has been submitted on behalf of the

opposite party no. 2 that the opposite party no. 2 was a brilliant

student and a gold medalist and it was as a result of torture

meted out to her that she left work and now she is unemployed.

With respect to statement of the petitioner that no dowry was

taken in any form nor was the opposite party no. 2 tortured, it is

submitted, referring to the Bank statement of one Gaurav

Gunjan Jha, brother of the opposite party no. 2 that various

amounts to the tune of Rs. 4 lacs on one occasion Rs. 18,000/-

and Rs. 5 lacs etc were transferred into the account of the father

of the petitioner.

Further, with respect to the allegation under section

313 of the Indian Penal Code it was submitted that when in the

night of 23.12.2016, the opposite party no. 2 developed

excruciating pain, the petitioner took her to Kamla Nehru State

Hospital, Shimla on 24.12.2016 and under the guidance of Dr.

Kushala Pathania, the attending doctor, ultrasound was

performed on the same date. She further states that during the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58004 of 2019(6) dt.28-02-2020
4/5

night of 24th December , there was miscarriage but the petitioner

still did not show any kind of concern and lastly dropped her at

her father’s place at Dibrugarh, Assam.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

having gone through the records, it transpires from the

complaint that at the time of marriage both the complainant as

well as the petitioner were working. While the complainant was

a Deputy Manager in a private company at Bangalore, the

petitioner was a Senior Manager in UCO Bank at Shimla.

Though there are allegations made against this petitioner,

however, the opposite party no. 2 categorically states in

paragraph no. 16 of the counter affidavit that on developing pain

in the night of 23.12.2016 it was the petitioner who took her to

the hospital where she underwent ultrasound. However,

unfortunately there was miscarriage. It was much thereafter on

19.1.2019 that the suit was filed by the petitioner in the Court

of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Katihar alleging cruelty

against the opposite party no. 2 and which is described in detail

in the divorce petition brought on record as Annexure 2 to the

application. As admitted in paragraph 11 of the complaint, she

received notice in connection with the said matrimonial case

and it was only thereafter that the complaint was filed on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58004 of 2019(6) dt.28-02-2020
5/5

25.4.2019 and thereafter on petition referred to the police

station, the FIR was registered. Further the petitioner has no

criminal antecedent.

The application for bail has been opposed by learned

APP for the State.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

taking into consideration the above stated facts and

circumstances, the Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on

bail. The petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or

surrender in the Court below within a period of six weeks from

today in connection with Mufassil P.S Case no. 137 of 2019 is

directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.

10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like

amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-Divisional

Judge Magistrate, Katihar subject to the conditions as laid down

in section 438(2) of Criminal Procedure Code.

(Partha Sarthy, J)
Prakash/-

U

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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