PAWAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 197 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No. 3265 of 2017 for the offence registered under Ss. 420, 494 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and under Sec. 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Heard the parties.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner files a certified copy of the depositions of opposite party no. 2 in Original Miscellaneous Case No. 101/2018 in the Family Court, at Jamshedpur dtd. 9/7/2018 wherein she has disclosed that her present address is her parents' house i.e Holding No. 23, B/2, Sai Cottage Bhaalubasa, P.O. Agrico, P.S. Sitaramdera, Town Jamshedpur, District Singhbhum East. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notice was issued to the parents' address of the opposite party no.2 and the registered post. A/D has returned with the endorsement that the door remains closed always and the notice through process server returned with the endorsement that the opposite party no. 2 has already vacated the flat on 7/4/2018 when the process server approached the opposite party no. 2. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that from this it is apparent that the opposite party no. 2 is avoiding service of the notice. Hence it is submitted that the notice to the opposite party no. 2 be waived. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the notice directed to be issued to the opposite party no. 2 is waived.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false and admittedly the petitioner has legally married with one Raju Bala four years prior to lodging of the First Information Report of the year 2018. Hence, obviously informant is not the wife of the petitioner, hence, no offence punishable under Ss. 498A of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is made out against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not the father of the baby, if any, of the informant and in Para 6 of the anticipatory application it has been volunteered by the petitioner to go for DNA sampling of the alleged baby which will expose the false allegation of the informant that the petitioner is the father of her baby, hence the informant is avoiding to appear in this case.