AWADHESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel appearing for the petitioners, counsel for the opposite party No.2 and the counsel for the State.

(2.) THE petitioners are apprehending their arrest in this case registered under Section 498 -A/34 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate at Dhanbad.

(3.) COUNSEL for the opposite party No. 2 has submitted that on 14.09.2011, the opposite party No. 2 has filed a complaint case No. 1748/2011 in the Court of learned C.J.M., Dhanbad alleging therein that the marriage between the petitioner No. 3 and the opposite party No.2 was solemnised on 23.11.2005 at Sindri. Thereafter, the complainant had gone to her sasural at Bokaro. The petitioner No.3, who is the husband of the complainant, is a Mechanical Engineer and he is working in Cummins India Limited in Pune at a highest package on the post of Manager. It is further submitted that according to their demand. the father of the complainant has given a huge amount of Rs. 8,50,000/ - in cash and Rs. 3 Lakhs were transferred from the account of the complainant's father to the account of the father of the petitioner No.3 as dowry and further a huge amount of valuable gift and gold ornaments worth Rs. 12 Lakhs has also been given to the complainant as 'streedhan' in the marriage. Thereafter, the petitioner No. 3, took the complainant with him at Pune. During her stay at Pune, the petitioners started demanding a sum of Rs. 5.50.000/ - for purchasing a car even the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, when they came to Pune in the residence of the petitioner No. 3, they also threatened the complainant with dire consequences if the demand of car is not fulfilled by her father. Thereafter, on the eve of Diwali, when the complainant was with her in -laws at in -law's house at Bokaro, the petitioner attempted to kill her by gas oven as the gas cylinder was kept on and she was asked to prepare tea, but due to smelling of gas. she did not switch on the gas, and saved her life. Thereafter, she was ousted from their house in the night and she came to the quarter of a friend of her father and from where her father in the next morning brought her at Dhanbad. The counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has submitted that it has come in the case diary that the witnesses have supported the prosecution case. Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has further contended that there is a specific allegation against all the petitioners regarding torture and demand of dowry, therefore they are not entitled to get the anticipatory bail in this case.