The petitioner was taken into custody under Section 498A IPC, “Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty”, section 504, “Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace”, section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention” and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. This petition is in connection with Mahila PS Case No. 39 of 2020 dated 07.03.2020.
In the high court of Judicature at Patna, this judgement was given by honourable Mr Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 4th of September 2021 in the case of Kiran Devi and others versus the state of Bihar, criminal miscellaneous No. 4766 of 2021. Mr Rajesh 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 petitioners were accused that at one time they abused the informant and demanded a four-wheeler from the informant, the informant is the one married to the nephew of petitioner no.2.
The counsel representing the petitioners held that according to the FIR allegations is directed towards the father-in-law and the mother-in-law and brother and sister of the husband of the informant and the petitioners have been accused of assaulting and demanding a four-wheeler once on holi. The counsel held that this is a scenario how all the members of the family have been dragged and falsely implicated. The counsel emphasized that there has been no account of physical abuse except one time which was an isolated incident, that too highly innocuous, which clearly has been made to exert undue pressure and implicate and harass the extended family of the husband of the informant, further the counsel stated that the petitioners live separately and have no connection regarding the affairs of the informant or her family members as they live in a different town. Also, the petitioners have no other criminal antecedent and further, the petitioners would not even gain anything if the father of the informant gave them a four-wheeler, therefore, the accusations are false.
The additional public prosecutor held that the petitioners have been named in the FIR with regard to abusing and demanding a four-wheeler from their daughter-in-law who is also the informant.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the court held that the Court finds that plain reading of the FIR indicates that somehow to make out an offence, the name of the petitioners have been introduced, for, in the entire body, there is not even a whisper with regard to any specific or direct act by them, which does not inspire confidence. Thus, the Court is inclined to allow the prayer for prearrest bail.
The court concluded that “the petitioners will be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Mahila PS Case No. 39 of 2020, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Procedure, 1973 and further, (i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioners and (ii) that the petitioners shall co-operate with the Court and police/prosecution. Failure to cooperate shall lead to the cancellation of their bail bonds. The petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.”