Advocates:
['PRASHANT PALLAV', '', 'MONALISA SINGH', 'NAVNEET SAHAY', 'VINEET KUMAR VASHISTHA', '', 'ANKUR ANAND', 'MAHESH TEWARI', 'VIKRAM SINGH']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

A.B.A. No. 6245 of 2020

Vikas Mishra

--- --- Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Jharkhand

2.

Dipty Mishra

-- --- Opp. Parties

With

A.B.A. No. 6275 of 2020

......

1.

Diwakar Mishra

2.

Rakesh Mishra

3.

Chandra Shekhar Mishra

4.

Anita Mishra

5.

Sangita Mishra

6.

Vikram Mishra @ Vikky

@ Vikram Kumar Mishra

--- --- Petitioners

Versus

1.

The State of Jharkhand

2.

Dipty Mishra

-- --- Opp. Parties

---

CORAM: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh

Through Video Conferencing

---

For the Petitioners

: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Adv.

Mr. Navneet Sahay, Adv.

For the State

: Mr. Vishwanath Roy, A.P.P

(in A.B.A. No. 6245 of 2020)

Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, A.P.P

(in A.B.A. No. 6275 of 2020)

For the O.P. No.2

: Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Adv.

---

10/25.06.2021

Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 Diwakar Mishra and Rakesh Mishra in

A.B.A. No.6275/2020 do not seek to press their application.

2.

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application as regards these

two petitioners stands dismissed as not pressed. Interim order dated 11^th

December 2020 stands vacated.

3.

Petitioners seek anticipatory bail in terms of Section 438 of the

Cr.P.C. in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 17/2020 for the offence

registered under Sections 498A, 323, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code,

pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Bokaro.

4.

Petitioner Vikas Mishra in A.B.A. No.6245/2020 is the husband

who has been implicated in the instant F.I.R. along with 6 other family

members i.e. father-in-law, mother-in-law, two brothers-in-law, sister-in-law

and her husband, petitioners in A.B.A. No.6275/2020. Learned counsel for the

petitioners submits that the marriage between the informant and the petitioner

-2-

Vikas Mishra took place in the year 2011 and a daughter was born out of the

said wedlock on 29^th July 2017. Petitioners have kept the informant and the

daughter with full love and affection in the matrimonial home but on frivolous

allegations of demand of dowry of Rs. 2 Lakhs and torture the instant F.I.R.

has been instituted only to harass the entire family members. It is submitted

that baseless allegations have been made against the brother-in-law about

teasing her. Informant has by instituting this case shown her intention to

harass the petitioners for the purposes of extorting money as the father-in-law

has recently retired from service and has got huge retiral benefits. Though the

informant has alleged that after two years in the matrimonial home, the torture

started but no such case was lodged anywhere. Learned counsel for the

petitioners submits that rest of the petitioners in A.B.A. No.6275/2020

petitioner no.3 has never gone to Delhi to stay. Petitioner no.4 sent her

daughter-in-law to stay in Delhi to assist the informant in daily household

chores, but no demand was made to any of the daughters-in-law with regard

to dowry. It is submitted that there is no injury report with regard to any

assault upon the informant. The allegation of the informant is also baseless as

she never lodged any case in Delhi and this F.I.R. was instituted only after

returning to Bokaro after much delay which has not been explained. Learned

counsel for the petitioners submits on instructions that wives of petitioners

Diwakar Mishra and Rakesh Mishra had also lodged separate F.I.Rs. with

similar allegations of demand of dowry and consequent torture. It is further

submitted that petitioners Chandra Shekhar Mishra, Anita Mishra, Rakesh

Mishra @ Rakesh, Vikash Mishra @ V. Mishra, Sangita Mishra @ Sangita,

Vikram Mishra @ Vikky @ Vikram Kumar Mishra in