Friday, March 11, 2016

the stiff competition between fake rape and fake DV, Fake maintenance cases !! Matrimony in India !!

IF woman files a false rape case and guy wins case, woman gets dose from court but NO money; IF woman files FALSE DV or false maintenance case woman anyhow gets interim maintenance, ad interim maintenance and in case of divorce she gets alimony even if she is proven to be cruel... now tell me which is worse ? FALSE rape case or false MOOLAH case ???

#fake_Rape #fake_DV #Fake_sec_125 #Maintenance #alimony

*****************

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/  FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
  
  
regards
  
Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist
  
  

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

RAPE, cheating etc on 7 of boy’s family just Bcaz engagement cancelled! Bombay HC fines police, quashes case!!

RAPE, cheating on 7 ppl of boy's family just Because marriage engagement cancelled! Bombay HC fines police, quashes case!!

When an engagement is cancelled girl goes on to file rape (sec 376) & cheating (sec 417) on the boy , his sisters, his Uncle, Aunt etc. Boy's Uncle and aunt, who are doctors by profession are denied AB and arrested though they are NOT involved in the rape case !! (in jail for approx 14 days !) All this is AFTER Arnesh Kumar case Judgement by Hon Apex court. Later they seek regular bail and that is ALSO delayed in spite of HC directions (at the time of bail) . Finally Hon HC quashes the RAPE case (now) against all relatives other than the boy and also imposes costs on the state government for illegal detention.
"….26. It is pertinent to note that though the offence was registered under section 376 and 417 IPC, the FIR does not spell out any allegations of rape against the petitioner Nos.3 and 4. The Investigating Officer has stated in her affidavit that on 4.04.2015 she had received an application from the Respondent no.2 alleging that the petitioners no.3 and 4 had threatened her and that she apprehends threat to her life. It may be mentioned that no crime has been registered against these petitioners for threatening the Respondent no.2. These petitioners were implicated in the crime only on the allegation that they had influenced the petitioner no.1 in calling off the marriage and had thereby committed an offence of cheating punishable under section 417 of the IPC. Based on these allegations, these petitioners were arrested on 8.06.2015….."
"…..27. It is pertinent to note that the offence under section 417 is bailable and is punishable with imprisonment for one year, or fine or both, despite which these two petitioners were arrested and remanded to custody from time to time. Needless to state that the power of arrest as well as the power to remand cannot be exercised in a casual manner….."
"…31. Reverting to the present case, though the Investigating officer has stated in the affidavit that the guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court in the arrest of Accused were followed at the time of arrest, a perusal of the case diary reveals that the directions in Arnesh Kumar (supra) have not been followed. The concerned investigating officer had arrested the petitioners no.3 and 4 without ascertaining their complicity in the offence. Though the offence was bailable, these petitioners were produced before the Magistrate and remand was sought for "the purpose of ascertaining the reason for calling off the marriage, for verifying whether the other relatives were involved, to verify whether these petitioners were involved in cheating any other person and for arresting the co-accused Annasaheb Jadhav". The records reveal that the learned magistrate had also mechanically remanded them to custody from time to time without even ascertaining the nature of the allegations against these petitioners….."




*****************

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/  FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
  
  
regards
  
Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist
  
  

can we emulate the Japanes men ? can we shun marriage and avoid trouble ?


Indian MEN have to study the current Japanese "low baby" , "low marriage" syndrome.

After all Japan and India are Asian cultures and have very similar beliefs based on ahimsa, realisation etc ... Japanese men have learnt to protect themselves very well from feminists and now the gummint is arranging speed dating melas for them!! I'm sharing a video that explains the issue but does NOT talk about feminism or bad family courts as the prime cause !!! ( so filter out the superficial !! ) ... If someone has some concrete ideas on where to start plese share your thoughts

Husband can appoint agent 2 appear @ familycourt. need NOT appear in person all dates. Madras HC.

Husband can appoint agent to appear at family court. Need NOT appear in person for all dates. Madras HC.

This decision will be quite Useful for NRIs & other husbands living out of station and so struggling to travel etc.

In this case, the Hon Madras HC orders that a husband can appoint an agent who is not a lawyer to appear on husband's behalf.

However husband cannot completely be absent (later in the proceedings) because counseling between couples is possible only if parties appear in person. The Hon HC also quotes other cases where it is decided the power agent cannot be cross examined on intimate matters (i.e.) husband to appear only on those occasions.

The Hon HC says "…18. Thus, it is now well settled legal position that there is no legal impediment under the Family Courts Act, for a Power of Attorney to appear on behalf of the Principal and the only legal embargo is that the recognised agent should not be a legal practitioner. Any person, not being a legal practitioner, can be nominated as an agent under Order 3 Rule 2 CPC, to prosecute or defend the parties and until the Family Court passess any specific order, directing appearance of the party, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case…."




*****************

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/  FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
  
  
regards
  
Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist
  
  

Parties may seek Exemption from personal appearance @ family court. Karnataka HC

USEFUL CASE for NRI and outstation husbands !!

Parties may seek Exemption from personal appearance @ family court. IF one side is already represented by counsel other side also to be allowed.Karnataka HC

In this case The husband sought leave of the Family Court to be represented through a Counsel. Court permitted husband to be represented by Counsel from inception of case. Wife who was at Mumbai gets a job and goes to USA. So she seeks both permission to be represented by counsel and exemption from personal appearance. Family court disallows both. Karnataka HC appreciates the facts and decrees that she can appear thru counsel

"10. There is nothing in Act or rules which prohibits a petition being filed by an authorised agent, or requires a petition should be presented by the petitioner in person. Therefore, there is no bar to a petition being presented to the Court by an agent (attorney holder). Even a Legal Practitioner who holds a power of attorney to present the petition, may 'present' a petition, but may not be able to 'represent' the petitioner in the proceedings unless permitted by the Family Court. Similarly, there is nothing in the Act or rules requiring the Family Court to refuse to recognise or accept the appearance of a respondent, through an authorised agent on the date fixed for appearance. A respondent can enter appearance through an authorised agent (who can also be a Legal Practitioner) with an application seeking permission to be represented by a Legal Practitioner…" and

"...11. A party may choose to appear through and be represented by an authorised agent other than a Legal Practitioner, in which event permis-sion under Section 13 is not necessary. A Family Court, having regard to the facts and circumstances, may of course make a specific order for the personal appearance of a party. Only if such an order is made, the party has to make an application for exemption from personal appearance if he/she is not in a position to appear in the matter. Even if the Family Court refuses permission to the parties to be represented by a Legal Practitioner, the parties may be represented by authorised agents other than a Legal Practitioner. But, if one side has been permitted to be represented by a Legal Practitioner, the Family Court should not refuse permission to the other side to be represented by a Legal Practitioner. To do so would be in violation of principles of natural justice…."

Since this procedure is gender neutral, Husbands should be able to use this to their benefit !!

More at

3.5 CRORES "settlement" 2 quash 498a,406! Submitted in memory of all who scream "..Marriage is scared..."

3crore 50lakhs ONLY to quash 498a,406 34 case. Submitted at the feet of all who say Marriage is scared

from the HC judgement we come to know

"… the respondent No.2 and the petitioner No.1 have amicably settled their disputes vide Memorandum of Mutual Understanding dated 03.03.2015, for a total sum of Rs.3,50,00,000/- (Three Crores Fifty Lakhs). As per the said settlement…."

and

"…12. Before parting with this order, I find force in the submission of learned APP for State regarding putting the petitioners to some terms. At this stage, petitioners No.1 and 2 have come forward and submitted that they are ready to contribute a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each for some welfare purposes.

13. Accordingly, the petitioners No. 1 and 2 are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with the Delhi Police Martyrs Fund within two weeks from today. Proof thereof shall be furnished to the learned Trial Court under intimation to the Investigating Officer/SHO concerned…."

more at



No maintenance liability on Mother-in-law, brother-in-law !!.



Gujarat HC Hon. Pardiwala(J) saves MIL, BIL ordered 2 pay Maintenance in a DV case by sessions court.

Quashes maintenance order and clarifies that husband alone is liable to pay maintenance during his lifetime !

In this case a Sessions court orders Rs 9000 maintenance to a wife and says the husband, brother in law and mother in law are to pay the same!! (…allowed the appeal and directed the applicants and the husband to pay Rs.9,000=00 per month towards the maintenance ….).

Case reaches Gujarat HC. Hon Justice Padriwala appreciates the facts and orders "…From the principles enunciated in the above referred decisions, it is apparent that any right which the wife has during the subsistence of her marriage and during the lifetime of her husband is against the husband and she has no right to claim any relief against the father-in-law or sister-in-law or any of the relatives of her husband inasmuch as the obligation to maintain her lies only on her husband. The complaint in question, therefore, appears to have been filed with the malafide intention to wreak vengeance for the purpose of settling personal scores and would fall within the ambit of Illustration (7) of the Illustrations delineated by the Supreme Court in the celebrated case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604, viz. that the proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge……"

More at :


Saturday, December 26, 2015

Divorce WITHOUT alimony aftr wife’s 498a where all accused acquitted! Bom HC. Trial court NEED NOT call it false !

In this Landmark case Bombay HC grants divorce to a harassed husband who was falsely accused in a 498a case. Appreciating the cruelty suffered by the husband and his relatives, and analysing the conduct of the wife, Bombay HC grants divorce WITHOUT any alimony !!

The lower court denies divorce stating that the 498a ended in acquittal because the prosecution did not prove the case, and that the trial court did NOT say the case was false, the Hon HC says it is NOT necessary for trial court to call the 498A false. Cruelty is to be decided based on conduct of parties and allegations made !!

Synopsis
****************************

A wife files a false 498A cocktail on her husband. Husband and other accused are made to run to the trial court more than 50 times. Elders at home with various ailments and his unmarried sister are charged. The complainant / wife fails to appear many times at the Criminal court, thereby lengthening the trial. Trial court finally decrees that the accusations in the 498a case as NOT proven by the prosecution and so the husband and co are acquitted.

Following this acquittal the husband applies for divorce on grounds of cruelty. The Family court refuses to grant divorce. Matter goes up to HC where HC appreciates the facts and grants divorce

The Husband submits and the HC observes that the accused were dragged 56 times to the Trial court, and on many instances because the wife was just absent !  The wife alleges that she started suffering arthritis becasue of ill treatment and her father died out of shock. But these allegations are NOT substantiated. The father dies some YEARS after the incidents !! 

more at : 

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

sosuld we rejoice when politiocs are trapped in their own game ?? the game of woman's empowerment ?

Ex wife alleges a politico tried to kill her !! case is filed and the politico resigns his post. This is another chapter in the sad saga of careers lost, years of hard work lost in India, in the name of women's appeasement

In this cacse the charges are NOT yet proven.

In many such cases it comes to light that the charges are false and motivated by anger or greed

Still men loose money, career and name. Society looses the support and services of honest men

While I write all this, I'm left with a quandy

I'm unable to decide for myself, IF I should mourn politicos caught in their own trap ??

The congress and communists have been in the forefront of women appeasement

they have enacted and supported every law possible to milk men, to bleed men, to arrest and defame men and thier families

Now one of them is caught in their own trap

What should our response be ??

Readers, brothers, YOU decide !

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news from the web>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Former wife accuses T Siddique of murder bid (and later he steps down from KPCC post!)


Thursday, May 21, 2015 11:41 hrs IST



T. Siddique


Kozhikode: KPCC general secretary T. Siddique's former wife, Nazeema, has accused that he tried to murder her.


Nazeema filed a complaint with Kozhikode police commissioner against the Congress leader. In her complaint, she said that Siddique and his aides manhandled and threatened to kill her at a hospital here when she went there for treatment.


The Kozhikode First Class Judicial Magistrate court had the other day registered a complaint against Siddique on charges of domestic violence on a complaint filed by Nazeema.


Source


http://english.manoramaonline.com/news/kerala

 



*****************

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/  FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
  
  
regards
  
Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist
  
  

*****************

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/  FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
  
  
regards
  
Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist
  
  

Friday, May 22, 2015

Drug addict Abla dies of overdose and they want hubby to B hanged!!

Drug addict Abla habituated to marijuana injections and paracetamol overdoes eats a strip of pills and dies at a premier hospital even after best treatment 

However the ablaas father wants the husband changed with murder 

Who will save men from ( such ) men ??

>>>>>>> case from Indian kanoon site !! >>>>>>>> 

Delhi High Court
Anil Kumar Aggarwal vs Govt. Of Nct & Anr. on 18 May, 2015

Author: Sunil Gaur

I- 29  *     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI                                      Date of Decision: May 18, 2015    +     CRL.M.C. 2076/2015 & Crl. M.A.No.7386/2015        ANIL KUMAR AGGARWAL     ... Petitioner                     Through: Mr. K. S. Negi, Advocate                             versus          GOVT OF NCT & ANR.       ... Respondents                      Through:           Mr. Parveen Bhati, Additional                                         Public Prosecutor for respondent-                                         State          CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR                             JUDGMENT  

% (ORAL) 


Petitioner had filed a criminal complaint for the offence of murder etc. regarding untimely death of his daughter- Priyanka Kumari, who was married to the accused just a year back prior to unfortunate death of petitioner's daughter. After recording the pre-summoning evidence, petitioner's complaint has been dismissed by the trial court by holding that there is no incriminating material on record to justify summoning of the accused. The aforesaid order of 2nd August, 2014 of the learned trial court has been affirmed by the learned Revisional Court vide impugned order of 17th November, 2014.

According to the complainant, the factual background of this case, as noticed in the impugned order of 17th November, 2014 of the learned Crl. M.C.No.2076/2015 Page 1 Revisional Court is as under:-



„According to the complainant, his daughter was married to Ranjit Kumar Aggarwal (respondent) on 26.06.2009. She died on 29.09.2010. The respondent/accused demanded Rs.4 lacs at the time of said marriage, in addition to other house hold articles. Said amount was also paid to him. After marriage, couples started residing together. In May, 2010 respondent further demanded a sum of Rs.5 lacs to purchase a car. He (complainant) did not take it seriously and ignored. Ranjit Kumar Aggarwal (respondent) joined Jindal Group of Companies, having office at Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. His daughter was thus went to Delhi. Although, the victim had some trivial complaints against her husband but same were ignored by him to save her matrimonial life. All of sudden on 25.09.2010, respondent/accused called his (complainant‟s) wife and asked them to come to Delhi. He came to Delhi. He was asked to reach Mohinder Hospital, Green Park, New Delhi.

After coming here, he (complainant) found his daughter semiconscious and unable to speak. It was disclosed to him that she (daughter of complainant) had some gastro problem and loose motion etc. Respondent/accused started requesting doctors to discharge the victim and due to his persistent requests, she was discharged from the hospital. When the victim was taken to her matrimonial house by respondent/accused, complainant was informed that she was serious and taken to Fortis Hospital, Vasant Kunj. He was asked to wait outside the hospital. In this hospital, the victim Priyanka was declared dead on 29.09.2010 at 11.50 am.


The five circumstances, which weighed with the courts below in dismissing petitioner's complaint at the summoning stage, are as under:-


„(i) There was no previous complaint lodged by the victim or her parents to the police or any other authority like CAW Cell etc. alleging demand of dowry or the domestic violence committed on her.

(ii) There was evidence on record to verify that after falling ill the victim was given treatment in best hospitals including Mohinder Hospital, Green Park and Fortis Hospital, Vasant Kunj. She was given immediate treatment and there was no delay in taking her to hospital by the accused.

(iii) The deceased had history of taking poison twice. She was a case of drug abuse.

(iv) According to post mortem report, the victim died due to Panrieatitis. The patient was opined as having consumed strip of Paracetamol. She was admitted to Mohinder Hospital for diarrhea and later on shifted to Fortis Hospital. According to death summery, the deceased was habitual of intravenous drug abuse in marijuana and was patient of depression. She was also a chain smoker.

(v) A per forensic report given by Safdarjung Hospital, the death of the said victim was due to hemorrhagic Panrieatitis.



Immediately before death of his daughter i.e. victim, the complainant gave statement before the Executive magistrate mentioning that the relation of accused and his daughter were cordial. Both of them used to live happily and peacefully. His daughter died due to disease and no one should be made responsible for it. Maternal grandfather of deceased was also examined by the Executive magistrate. This witness also stated that they had no complaint against anybody and the victim died due to disease.‟ (underlined to supply emphasis) At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the impugned order erroneously proceeds on the ground that there is no incriminating material against the accused persons and the pre- summoning evidence of petitioner as well as grandfather of deceased clearly makes out an offence of murder against the accused persons and so, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and accused persons ought to be tried in accordance with the law.


Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order and the material on record, I find that in the pre-summoning evidence of petitioner and the grandfather (nana) of the deceased, the fact of deceased earlier trying to take her life is no where questioned and nothing material has come in pre-summoning evidence regarding alleged cruelty being meted out to the deceased to come to a conclusion that grave doubt exists regarding the involvement of accused persons in causing the death of deceased.


The Apex Court in State of Orissa v. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan (2012) 4 SCC 547 has reiterated that inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are to be exercised in exceptional cases. Pertinent observations of the Apex Court in Ujjal Kumar (supra) on this aspect are as under: -


"It is true that the inherent powers vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide. Nevertheless, inherent powers do not confer arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whims or caprice. This extraordinary power has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and as far as possible, for extraordinary cases, where allegations in the complaint or the first information report, taken on its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged. It needs little emphasis that unless a case of gross abuse of power is made out against those in charge of investigation, the High Court should be loath to interfere at the early/premature stage of investigation."

In the instant case, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no palpable error in the impugned order to justify interference by this Court.


This petition and application are accordingly dismissed.

                                                                (SUNIL GAUR)                                                                JUDGE    MAY 18, 2015  r          Crl. M.C.No.2076/2015                                             



--

*****************

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/  FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
  
  
regards
  
Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist
  
  

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Mr. Gulam !, repeatedly appear in court again & again + wife should say you are OK !!

Mr. Gulam !, repeatedly appear in court again & again + wife should say you are OK !!

"...That the petitioner is husband and he is ready to keep his wife."
"... he shall take his wife/complainant with him to his house and keep her with all respect and dignity that a wife would deserve ..."
"...That on completion of period of two months of the provisional bail of the petitioner, he again with his wife/complainant shall surrender before the court below and if, ..."
"...That on completion of period of four months, the petitioner and the complainant shall again surrender before the court below and if this time, the court below also find that the complainant had no further complaint against the petitioner and/or his family member, ..."
"...That both the bailors will be close family relatives of the petitioners, who will undertake an affidavit giving genealogy as to how they are related with the petitioner. ..."


Still MEN WANT TO GET MARRIED !!!

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.47200 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -657 Year- 2013 Thana -
AURANGABAD COMPLAINT CASE District- AURANGABAD

******************************************************
Sujeet Kumar Mehta @ Sujit Kumar Mehta S/o Kameshwar resident of
village- Jogi Bigaha, P.S.- Jamhore, District- Aurangabad              .... .... Petitioner/s

       Versus

1. The State of Bihar
2. Sushma Devi W/o Sujeet Kumar Mehta D/o Jagdish Mehta Resident of

village- Salampur (Amauna), P.O.- Sudargani, P.S.- Risiup, District-
Auranagabad                                                        .... .... Opposite Party/s

******************************************************
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s     :     Mrs. Leelawati Kumari, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s :     Mr. Suman Kumari Singh (App)
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
******************************************************

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA

ORAL ORDER

2

14-05-2015

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Having regard to the nature of allegation against the petitioner for offence under Sections 323, 379 & 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and that the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of the statement made in paragraph-8 reading as follows:

" That the petitioner is husband and he is ready to keep his wife."

has submitted that the petitioner has prepared to not only keep the complainant as wife with due respect and dignity but also this Court would find from the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 07.11.2014 that even the complainant was desirous of living with the petitioner by way of restoring of her conjugal life, this Court would direct that if the petitioner, namely, Sujeet Kumar Mehta @ Sujit Kumar Mehta surrenders on 08th June 2015 before the court below, the court below, on hearing the complainant as also her learned counsel, shall pass an order granting provisional bail to the petitioner for a period of two months, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad in connection with Complaint Case No. 657 of 2013, subject to the following conditions:

(i) That the petitioner immediately after being granted provisional bail for a period of two months, he shall take his wife/complainant with him to his house and keep her with all respect and dignity that a wife would deserve in the hands of the husband and his family members.

(ii) That on completion of period of two months of the provisional bail of the petitioner, he again with his wife/complainant shall surrender before the court below and if, on query being made from the complainant, it is found by the court below that the complainant was not given any sort of physical or mental torture by her husband/petitioner as well as his family members, such provisional bail of the petitioner shall be again extended for a period of four months.

(iii) That it goes without saying that if the court below, on the other hand, from the statement of the complainant, finds that in the period of two months, she was badly treated by the petitioner and his family members, the provisional bail granted to the petitioner shall be cancelled and he shall be taken into custody.

(iv) That on completion of period of four months, the petitioner and the complainant shall again surrender before the court below and if this time, the court below also find that the complainant had no further complaint against the petitioner and/or his family member, the provisional bail of the petitioner shall be confirmed. It is again made it clear that if at this stage also, the complainant makes out any allegation of torture or misbehaviour by the petitioner/husband and/or his family members, his provisional bail shall come to an end and he will be taken to custody. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

(v) That both the bailors will be close family relatives of the petitioners, who will undertake an affidavit giving genealogy as to how they are related with the petitioner. The bailors will also undertake to inform the court if there is any change in the address of the petitioner.

(vi) That the affidavit shall clearly state that the petitioner is not accused in any other case and if he is, he shall not be released on bail.

(vii) That the bailors shall also state on affidavit that they will inform the court concerned, if the petitioner is implicated in any other case of similar nature after his release in the present case and thereafter the court below will be at liberty to initiate the proceeding for cancellation of his bail on the ground of misuse.

(viii) That the petitioner will be well represented on each and every date in course of trial and if his fails to do so on two consecutive dates, his bail will be liable to be cancelled on this ground alone.

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)


Sujit/-

U



*****************

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/  FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
  
  
regards
  
Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist