BRAHMANAND SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the anticipatory bail applications arose from same complaint, thus, are heard together and disposed of by this order. Heard Sri Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Moti Gope, learned Additional P.P. for the State and Sri Ashok Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.

(2.) IT is alleged that the petitioners, who are father -in -law and husband, used to torture complainant. Complainant further alleged that petitioner (husband) has illicit relation with his sister -in -law. It appears that petitioner (husband) has filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal right, thereafter, present complaint filed. It also appears that on the behest of complainant's in -laws family, petitioner (husband) was residing in separate house with the complainant, but in spite of that complainant had grievance against the petitioner (husband) because he used to go to his old house. Thus, it appears that complainant does not want that her husband shall meet with his other family members. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I allow the anticipatory bail application and direct petitioners to surrender in the court below on or before 20.12.2013 and in the event of their surrender, the learned court below is directed to enlarge the petitioners, above named, on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/ - (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, in connection with C.P. Case No. 652 of 2012, subject to the condition as laid down under section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.