Blog

The petitioner was taken into custody under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, “Punishment for rape”, section 313, “Causing miscarriage without woman’s consent”, section 506, “Punishment for criminal intimidation”, section 377, “Unnatural offences”, section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention”.  The present petition is in connection with Mahila PS Case No. 37 of 2020 dated 07.03.2020.

In the high court of Judicature at Patna, this judgment was given by honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 16^th   of August 2021 in the case of Vishwajit Kumar Bharti @ Bittu versus the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No. 37715 of 2020, Mr. Ajay Kumar Represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Md. Arif represented the state of Bihar as the additional Public Prosecutor, the proceedings of the court were held via video conference.

The following are the facts of the case, the petitioner was accused of abusing the informant physically, as he entered into a physical relationship with her and as a sign put vermilion on her forehead and stated that now she was his wife and as she becomes pregnant with a four and a half month baby and such allegations of physical abuse arose against the petitioner.

The counsel representing the petitioner held that according to an affirmed affidavit on the 13^th of August 2020, the parties were living as husband and wife together. The additional public prosecutor obtained a report from the superintendent of police in Nalanda, this report has been annexed before the court and it contains a handwritten statement of the informant party on the 1^st of August 2021 and she has clearly emphasized that after marriage she has been living well in the matrimonial home and her husband’s family also supported her education and the expenses were paid for by the father-in-law ( the petitioner’s father) and she claimed that she has no further grievance against her husband and his family.

The court held that since there is sufficient evidence according to the reports submitted after investigation, to prove that the wife is being treated well and has been accepted in the family and since there was no further grievance, therefore the court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case the high court of Patna held the petitioner will be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the SDJM, in Mahila PS Case No. 37 of 2020, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C., 1973  “(i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner, (ii) that the petitioner and the bailors shall execute the bond and give an undertaking with regard to the good behaviour of the petitioner (iii) that the petitioner shall also give an undertaking to the Court that he shall keep the informant-opposite party no. 2 in the matrimonial home with full dignity, honour and security and shall take care of all her needs and that she shall be free to visit, talk to or meet any person she desires, without any let or hindrance by him or his family members and (iv) that the petitioner shall co-operate with the Court and police/prosecution.”

The court concluded that “Any violation of the terms and conditions of the bonds or the undertaking or failure to co-operate shall lead to cancellation of his bail bonds. 10. It shall also be open for the prosecution and the informant-opposite party no. 2/her guardians to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the petitioner, to the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take immediate action on the same after giving the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.”

Click here to read the judgment