0

Pre-Arrest Bail denied and Interim Order for protection stood vacated on establishing the grounds for Assault and Dowry Demand: High Court Of Patna

The petitioner alleged torture, assault, and dowry demand were denied the pre-arrest bail. Also, the interim protection of him was vacated by the Court orders. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna before Justice Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the matter Abhay Kumar v. The State of Bihar[Criminal Miscellaneous No. 78092 of 2019].

The facts of the case were that the petitioner was apprehended arrest in connection with Case, instituted under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 325, and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is the husband of the informant. He along with the other family members were accused of assault, torture and dowry demand of cash of Rs. 5 Lakhs and drove her out of her matrimonial home.

The Petitioner’s learned counsel submitted that it was the informant who wasn’t interested to live in the petitioner’s house as she always kept going to her parent’s house. It was submitted that in the FIR, it has been stated that Rs. 18 lakhs was spent on the marriage, which is false for the reason that the petitioner is in the job in a private firm and, thus, there was no occasion for the family of the informant spending so much money on him in the marriage.

The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has also filed a case alleging that the family members of the informant had come to his place and had assaulted the inmates and had also forcibly taken his mother to the village of the informant where her hair was cut. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner all along has been ready to keep the informant but she is not cooperating due to the negative influence of her relatives.

The Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the petitioner was making obstacles in the matrimonial relationship to make it difficult for the informant to stay at the matrimonial home. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that the petitioner is a very shrewd person and right from the beginning, he has been creating issues and situations so that the informant may leave the matrimonial home.

It was submitted that after the assault, the informant had to be admitted to PMCH where she was treated for various injuries caused by torture and assault by the petitioner and his family members. Learned counsel submitted that the conduct of the petitioner is clear proof that he is somehow trying to avoid taking responsibility for the informant and keep her as his wife in the matrimonial home.

The Hon’ble High Court Of Patna held,” Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that repeatedly it has given indulgence and chance to the petitioner to live up to his commitment that he is ready to keep the informant with him for which exercise was directed many times and every time, the Court finds that due to some shortcoming on the side of the petitioner, such exercise failed and even with regard to the last exercise, the informant has brought photographs on record showing that she is waiting outside the locked gate of the house where the petitioner was to take her but he did not turn up.” After taking the whole overview of the matter the petitioner was not granted the pre-arrest bail. Interim protection granted to the petitioner earlier was vacated.

Click Here To Read The Judgment

Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish

Leave a Reply

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

Open chat