MAHESH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 04. 02.05.2012. Heard counsel for the petitioners, counsel for the State and counsel for the complainant-opposite party no.2. Petitioner No. 1 is the father-in-law and petitioner no. 2 is the mother-in-law of the complainant-opposite party no. 2. Petitioners are accused in a case registered under sections 498A/406/313/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

(2.) IT is submitted by Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the learned court below has taken cognizance of the offence only under section 498A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860. He has submitted that both the petitioners are living separately from the complainant and her husband-Vinod Sharma. In support of his contention, he has submitted a deed of declaration i.e. Annexure 2 to this application, wherein it is said that petitioner no. 1 has already separated his elder son who is husband of the present complainant; and petitioners no. 1 and 2 are living with their younger son, as because his elder son and his wife make the situation tense and disturb the peace of the house. The deed of declaration is dated 3rd September, 2010 i.e. prior to the filing of the present complaint by the complainant. IT is also stated that the petitioners have given information to the Officer-in-Charge, Fatasil Aam Bari, P.S. Guwahati in July, 2011 informing him that the father-in-law and mother-in-law of their elder son giving them threat. IT is also submitted that there is no specific allegation of torture against either of the petitioners. Counsel for opposite party no. 2 has submitted that petitioner no. 1 after marriage always used to demand dowry. Even before Panchayat, all the accused persons appeared but they refused to take back the complainant with them. IT is also submitted that accused no. 2, who is petitioner no.2 used to assault the complainant often and always used to pass comments regarding black complexion. Lastly, accused no. 1, who is husband of the complainant, got her pregnancy terminated. Further more they have even denied to give proper food as because the demand of dowry of rupees three lacs has not been fulfilled by the complainant or her parents.

(3.) IN that view of the matter, petitioner no. 1-Mahesh Sharma is directed to surrender in the court below within a period of one month from today and if he surrenders within the said period, the trial court is directed to release him on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in connection with C/1 Case No. 1754 of 2011, subject to the condition that one of the bailors will be the local resident having immovable property within the jurisdiction of the district concern and also subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.