ABDUL QUAYUM KHAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the anticipatory bail applications are heard together as they arise from the same F.I.R. i.e. Azad Nagar P.S. Case No. 81 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 1497 of 2016, registered under Sections 406, 420, 498A, 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3 / 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, lodged on the basis of one written report given by Sana Mahtab alleging that she is aged about 20 years and she was married on 05.11.2015 according to Islamic rites with Dr. Naushad Akhtar Khan (petitioner in A.B.A. No. 4050 of 2016) at Jamshedpur and prior to marriage it is alleged that her father-in-law namely Dr. Abdul Quayum Khan (petitioner no. 1 in A.B.A. No. 2662 of 2016), her mother-in-law namely Mobina Khatoon (petitioner no. 2 in A.B.A. No. 2662 of 2016), her sister-in-law (nanad) namely Nasrin Begam and brother-in-law (dewar) namely Nayyar Iqbal Khan disclosed that the age of Naushad Akhtar Khan was about 38 years, working in Saudi Arabia and his monthly compensation package is Rs. 4,50,000/- and he has to return within one month. The father of the informant, who is a Advocate, has bear the expenses of the marriage and pursuant thereto thereafter she went to her sasural and handed over all the jewelries, but after some time all Sasural people and husband started putting pressure to bring Rs. 10,00,000/-for purchasing Skoda Vehicle. It is further alleged by the informant that in Sasural she came to know that her husband (petitioner in A.B.A. No. 4050 of 2016) had prior to marriage with the marriage with one girl of Gaya and thereafter they have taken divorce. This fact was concealed. On the basis of these allegations, the instant case was instituted.

(2.) Pursuant to issuance of notice, parties have appeared on 08.12.2016, possibility of reconciliation through the process of mediation was explored, but it failed. Case diary was called for, but the matter was heard on merits.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners in A.B.A. No. 2662 of 2016 submitted that the petitioners are the in-laws of the informant and there is omnibus allegation leveled against them and they have been falsely implicated in this case, so they deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.