- (1.) ANTICIPATORY bail application filed by Awaneesh Kumar is moved by Sri K.P. Deo, learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Sri Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the informant and Sri P.K. Jha, Addl. P.P. for the State.
(2.) IT is alleged that the informant married with the petitioner on 23.06.2010. At the time of marriage, father and relatives of informant spent altogether Rs. 20,00,000/ -. It is further alleged that on 24.06.2010 when the informant along with her husband was going to her in -laws house, one Rajni Singh sat in between them. It is further alleged that the aforesaid Rajni Singh was also present in the room on the first night, which was not acceptable to the complainant. It is then alleged that on 27.06.2010 informant came to her parental house and petitioner went to Sindri. It is further alleged that on 30.06.2010 petitioner demanded Rs. 15,00,000/ - for purchasing of Honda City car. It is also alleged that on 02.07.2010 when informant was going to Haldia along with petitioner said Rajni Singh accompanied them at Dhanbad and went to Haldia. Informant saw the petitioner in compromising position with the aforesaid Rajni Singh. Thereafter, informant made complain with her father -in -law, mother -in -law and with the father and mother of Rajni Singh. But they did not take any action against petitioner and Rajni Singh, on the other hand they chided informant. It is further stated that thereafter informant took decision to leave the service and reside with the petitioner, but she was again chided by the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner then asked the informant to live with her parents. Thereafter, petitioner's services transferred to Patna and informant started living with him at Patna. At Patna also she had been harassed for demand of Rs.15,00,000/ -. It is also stated that petitioner has not consummated the marriage and saying that unless informant and her family members fulfil the demand of Rs.15,00,000/ - he will not consummate the marriage. Accordingly, the present case has been filed. Sri K.P. Deo, appearing for petitioner submits that the petitioner on several occasions transferred handsome money to the bank account of the informant . He has enclosed the statement of bank account issued by the State Bank of India as Annexure -2 series. He submits that if petitioner himself paying money to informant, why he will demand money from her. He further submits that the aforesaid Rajni Singh is cousin sister of petitioner, which manifests from Annexures -6 and 7. Accordingly, he submits that the question of establishing any illicit relation with the sister does not arise. It is further submitted that informant herself chatting with her friends. He further submits that the petitioner has filed a Matrimonial case bearing case no. 875 of 2011 for restitution of conjugal right, which is still pending. The petitioner, at paragraph no. 12 of this bail application has stated that he is still ready to keep informant as his wife and to restore conjugal relation. Accordingly, it is submitted that petitioner may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Sri Mahesh Tewari appearing for informant submitted that the informant had given Rs.1,23,000/ - to the petitioner on different occasions by cash as demanded by him, which was returned by the petitioner by transferring the said amount in her account. So far Annexure -3 is concerned, i.e. the statement of chatting, it is stated that the informant was chatting with her girl friend who was working in the same office. However, learned counsel for the informant has not disputed that the petitioner had filed a case for restitution of conjugal right. Learned counsel for the informant stated that Rajni Singh is not own cousin of the petitioner, rather it appears that they are distantly related to each other. Informant has not filed any rejoinder to the statements made in supplementary affidavit that Rajni Singh is his sister. Sri Mahesh Tewari submits that if petitioner will be granted anticipatory bail then the life of informant will be ruined. Hence, bail application filed by the petitioner be rejected. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the records of the case.
(3.) IT is alleged that the petitioner had demanded Rs.15,00,000/ - just after the marriage. However, from perusal of Annexure -2 series, I find that on different occasions petitioner transferred Rs.1,23,000/ - in the account of informant on different dates. Thus, if the petitioner was paying such huge amount to the informant, then it does not inspire confidence, why he will demand money from her. The explanation given by the informant in her counter affidavit also not satisfactory because if relation of the petitioner with the informant had become strain within few days of marriage, then it is not probable that she will pay money to him or his friend. So far the allegation against the petitioner that he has illicit relation with Rajni Singh also prima facie appears to be not acceptable, because from perusal of Annexure -6 and Annexure -7, it prima facie appears that she is cousin sister of petitioner. Thus, it is not possible that he will establish illicit relation with sister and that too within knowledge of his parents as well as the parents of Rajni Singh. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to accept the submission raised by the counsel for the informant. Accordingly, I allow this application and direct the petitioner, named above, to surrender in the court below by 06.05.2013. If petitioner surrenders by that time, the court below is directed to enlarge the petitioner, named above, on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/ -(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No.04 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No.1021 of 2012, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr. P.C.;