SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Pat) 1182

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.
Gaurav Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar and ors. - Opposite Parties
Criminal Miscellaneous No.34528 of 2020
Decided On : 21-05-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rajendra Narain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Alok Ranjan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party :Mr. Md. Arif, APP, Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate

The seriousness of allegations, supported by documentary evidence, and the lack of satisfactory explanation from the petitioner regarding financial transactions influenced the Court's decision to deny pre-arrest bail.

Headnote:

498-A, 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Apprehension of arrest in connection with allegations of dowry demand, assault, and transfer of large sums of money - Court dismisses pre-arrest bail application

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with a case under Sections 498-A, 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, lodged by his wife, sought pre-arrest bail. The wife alleged dowry demands, assault, and large sums of money transferred to the petitioner's account.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the allegations were supported by documentary evidence, including bank statements, and the petitioner failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the large sums of money transferred to his account. The Court noted the seriousness of the allegations and denied the pre-arrest bail application.

Issues: Allegations of dowry demand, assault, and transfer of large sums of money, petitioner's explanation for the transactions, and the appropriateness of granting pre-arrest bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court considered the documentary evidence and the lack of satisfactory explanation from the petitioner regarding the large sums of money transferred to his account. The seriousness of the allegations and the societal expectations regarding matrimonial affairs were also taken into account.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the pre-arrest bail application and vacated the interim protection previously granted to the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Rajendra Narain, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Alok Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Md. Arif, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the ‘APP’) for the State and Mr. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the informant.

3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Mojahidpur (Babarganj) PS Case No. 80 of 2020 dated 21.03.2020, instituted under Sections 498-A, 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

4. The opposite party no. 2, who is the informant of the case and wife of the petitioner, has alleged that her marriage took place when the petitioner was pursuing study of MBBS and in the marriage, rupees twenty two lakhs cash was given besides gift of rupees four lakhs. It is further alleged that on persistent demand and pressure from the petitioner, Rs.14,24,600/-was transferred in the account of the petitioner in the name of expenses. Thereafter, in the year 2016, he completed his MBBS course and in the meantime, she was blessed with a girl child on 07.03.2014. It is alleged that the petitioner was employed in Indian Army on 01.06.2016 and he started pressurizing the informant for purchasing two Kathas of land due to which the father of the informant transferred two Kathas of land, but in the name of the informant. Thereafter, it is said that in October, 2019, the petitioner was transferred to Military Hospital, Gaya, and on 03.10.2019, she along with her daughter had gone to Gaya and lived there in the residence allotted to the petitioner, but on 06.10.2019, she was assaulted and driven out of the house and it is alleged that the petitioner has relationship with another boy and he had told her that only for the purpose of meeting the expenses during studies, he has married the opposite party no. 2. It is alleged that on the occasion of Chhath, the mother, the sister and the brother of the petitioner started torturing her that remaining two Kathas of land be also transferred by the father and further demand of money was made due to which Rs. 1, 20,000/-was transferred in the account of the petitioner on 6th, 7th and 8th of November, 2019. It is further alleged that when she went on 13.01.2020, to the Commanding Officer with her father and daughter to complain, the petitioner agreed to keep her and on 14.01.2020 had taken them to his residence and the father of the informant along with her daughter returned to Bhagalpur, but the petitioner is alleged not to have maintained any conjugal relationship and, in fact, it is alleged that he used to sleep with Dr. Pradeep and had taken her mobile phone so that he could not talk anywhere and on 02.02.2020, she was sent to Bhagalpur by train. It is said that again, after the examination of the daughter was over, she had gone to Gaya on 19.02.2020. It has further been stated that on 20.02.2020, when the father of the informant went to update her Pass Book of UCO Bank, he found that the balance was nil even though she had Rs. 7,46,669/-in the account and then it transpired that the petitioner had got the amount transferred in his three accounts. It has been stated that when she confronted the petitioner, initially, he denied but later assured her that he would return the money and the petitioner is said to have called his mother on 29.02.2020 and took the informant to his native village on the pretext that he has taken one month’s leave and would come there and return the money. It is alleged that on 20.02.2020, the mother of the petitioner, after assaulting and abusing her and taking her jewellery had forcibly made the informant to go Aliganj on a motorcycle with the nephew of the mother of the petitioner. Finally, it has been alleged that the petitioner was living in Gurgaon (Haryana) in his house where he has also married another lady. Accordingly, prayer has been made for seeking appropriate legal action in the matter resulting

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top