Upgrad LLM

498a/406 anticipatry bail/ child welfare


Dear Sir,

My anticipatry bail is going for 498a & 406, case i also jon the investigation & even the Govt Advaocate mention that i am joining the investigation. We have a joint FD in my wife name & me to which i already withdraw my name & now money transfer to my wife account, My wife is now claming that Gold is in my possesion & the bill they show of 2008, as it is my & her 2nd marrige , she also file 498a on her first husband. & we come to know that from earliear husband chargesheet that gold is not recovered yet (if we consider her last 498a true), in sept Judge almost give me anticipatry bail but at last moment my wife ask for child welfare of my child, as for my child i also said anything for my child. But now she & even judge ask for plot in the name of girl child, but i dont have any plot on my name it is in the name of my father & he refused to give it. Now in Oct 2016 they make one more demand of half house in the name of my girl child , our hosue is also on my father name ( both is his property not hereditry), i can only do RD or suknya yojna on my child name as i dont have such big mony that i can buy the plot. waht i will do know? i think my anticipatry bail may got rejected just bcoz i am not able to give plot on my child name. is it justice? how can i proceed further?  

 
Reply   
 
Lawyer at Supreme Court of India

Sir, 

 

This is no ground for rejection of an anticipitory bail, you can refer my Article on Anticipatory Bail at https://kapilchandnaadvocate.wordpress.com/ and argue with relevant judgements. Judge cannot impose financial restrictions on you at the time of anticipatory bail. I think Judge is getting emotional with respect to your case. 

 

Warm Regards 

Kapil Chandna Advocate 

9899011450


Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 



i have check your article it is very nice & very nicely explained,sir can you suggest some relevent judgments. i find one judgment Delhi High Court Avinash vs State on 25 July, 2014, Is it relevent or suggest if more judgemnts is there



Attached File : 364844 20161012003257 535064577 delhi high court.docx downloaded 110 times
 
Reply   
 
N.A

There are many judgements where SC has said that denying of AB for not providing financial security to opposite party is wrong.

 

 
Reply   
 
N.A

Why your lawyer not raised these points, whether judge is hearing the case of 498a/406 or child welfare.

Do you have any written order where judge has asked you to provide the same?


Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 

This is the practical problem which can be tackled by a efficient and influential lawyer.

 
Reply   
 
CEO

Denying Anticipatory bail for not providing Financial security to the opposite party is  wrong.       A number of Supreme Court decisions vouchsafe for this point.You buy  a plot accumulating all your resources or taking  a loan and put the plot in the name of your child  and get rid of  your estranged wife, a pain in the ass.If you  appreciate this answer please click the thank you buttonon this forum.

 
Reply   
 

sachin it is here only kindly check attachment. can you suggest some judgment, my lawyers is not taking our side, it seems something is wrong, even anyhow by pressure i will give it to my child, it will not solve the purpose, wife relatives sell that plot & my child again not get secured, on the other hand property of my father which he made after his entire for his old age also gone, so niether my daguhter is happy nor my parents are happy. 



Attached File : 364844 20161012193757 721121274 crm m 4216 2016 06 09 2016 interim order.pdf downloaded 94 times
 
Reply   
 
N.A

Your defense is highly against you.

on fist hearing you said that " petitioner submits that it was a case of second marriage between both the parties and no dowry was given at the time of marriage. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to sign any document relating to FDR, which is stated to be in joint name and the complainant-respondent No.2 "

On second hearing " the petitioner did not make any effort for encashment of the fixed deposit whereas learned counsel for the petitioner submits that original copy of fixed deposit was not available with the petitioner and a written request was made to the Bank for issuance of duplicate copy. All the formalities have been completed by the petitioner"

On third hearing " learned counsel for Union Territory of Chandigarh submits that though the petitioner has joined the investigation and majority of the items have been recovered except jewellery items. "

On fourth hearing " Adjourned to 05.10.2016 to enable the petitioner to apply his mind to transfer 10 marla plot in the name of his girl child or in the alternative to deposit an amount in the shape of FDR in her name to secure her future "

 

When you yourself said that you are ready to give money and plot , when you yourself said that no stridhan has given , then how it was recovered. In this circumstances what do you expect the court "

If you still want to reduse the said amount be ready to file appeal in division bench of HC.

 
Reply   
 

LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

  Search Forum








×

Menu

CrPC MASTERCLASS!     |    x