VIVEK RAI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the impugned order dated 24-3-2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 24 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the petitioner was cancelled in connection with the Complaint Case No. 330 of 1999 pending in the Court of the S.D.J.M. Bokaro and with the prayer that the petition is permitted to remain on bail.

(2.) The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was married to the opposite party No.2, Sunita Rai on 3-7-1998 at Bokaro Steel City and after marriage the opposite party No.2/complainant went to her matrimonial home at Allahabad. After two days staying in her matrimonial home, her father-in-law on the plea that her father was solvent to pay and demanded Rs. 1.5 lakhs which was supported by both of her Nanad. It is alleged that a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- was demanded as dowry before the marriage. Though her father was not in a position to pay such huge amount but from his retiral benefits he got a draft of Rs.3,41,000/- prepared on 18-5-1998 and sent to the father of the petitioner which was accepted on certain terms. When the opposite party No.2/ complainant appraised the matter relating to demand of dowry by her in laws before her husband, he also reiterated the demand besides, he raised demand of a Maruti car to be brought from her parental house. On the 3rd day no food was provided to her and on the 4th day she was pressurized by her father-in-law to convey on telephone to her parents about the demand raised by them. On such receiving telephonic message her father and brother came to Allahabad to whom she narrated all the facts and after putting land on mortgage her father obtained Rs. 1,50,000/- and paid it to the accused persons and only then the opposite party No.2/complainant was allowed to go with her father after retaining all her Jewelleries and it was cautioned that she would be allowed in her matrimonial home only on the delivery of a Maruti Car by her father. When the petitioner used to visit the parental home of the opposite party No.2, he used to reiterate the demand of car and also used to torture the opposite party No.2/complainant mentally and physically. In New Delhi also where the petitioner was posted, the opposite party No.2/complainant was subjected to torture for the car. It is alleged that the petitioner used to confine her in the house under lock and key whenever used to go out on his job and used to return in the state of intoxication. No arrangement was made for preparation of food in the house and she was brutally assaulted and mentally tortured by him and her physical condition, therefore, day by day deteriorated. During the Durga Punja her father-in-law as well as sister-in-laws visited New Delhi and they also tortured and reiterated the demand of Rs. two lakhs for purchasing a Maruti Car. On 1-10-1998 at the instance of the petitioner-husband, Vevek Rai, her father-in-law after pouring K. Oil on her body attempted to set on her fire with the help of her sister-in-laws but she screamed and out of fear of the neighbours the occurrence could not be given effect to and she any how could inform her parents. On such information her brother came to New Delhi with a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and delivered it to her father-in-law. As the physical and mental condition of the opposite party No.2 deteriorated, she was brought to Bokaro and after treatment her mental condition came to normalcy and after sometime the petitioner with his father came to Bokaro and put pressure for payment of balance amount to which her father expresssed inability to pay such huge amount and she was again mentally tortured. Her husband lastly visited Bokaro on 17-10-1999 and reiterated the demand of Rs. two lakhs by putting pressure but as her father expressed inability to pay the same, the accused persons including petitioner was attempted to assault her. The matter was informed to the police station but without any action hence the complaint case No. 330 of 1999 was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro and cognizance of the offence was taken under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code as well as 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(3.) The petitioner was admitted on bail vide Bail Petition No. 196 of 2003 by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro on the affirmation of the opposite party No. 2 that good feeling has prevailed between the parties, as such the accussed-petitioner may be enlarged on bail so that he may bring back his wife, Sunita Rai to lead a happy conjugal life. Accordingly, the petitioner was admitted to bail on executing bail bonds with the observation, "since the bail of the petitioner is being disposed of solely on the ground of compromise without touching the merit of the case, as such in event of any hesitation on the part of the accused-petitioner to follow the undertaking given to the complainant in the Court to keep her with full dignity and honour, the complainant, Sunita Rai will be at her liberty to move for cancellation of his bail. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court of S.D. J.M. Bokaro for needful.