Md.Sultan Vs. State of Jharkhand

c-101, vasundhara apartments, dwarka, new delhi was purchased by the defendant in the name of the plaintiff and for her benefit. regarding property at l-4, connaught place, new delhi, it is alleged that the plaintiff has no right in the aforesaid property which belongs to the defendant. since the defendant is willing to give half of the rental income from the aforesaid house to the plaintiff after deducting the expenditure incurred on its upkeep and maintenance, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of rendition of accounts with respect to the rental income earned by the defendant from h.no.670, ajit singh nagar mohali phase-ii, punjab. in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi a.b.a. no. 2632 of 2011 -----versus -----.... ...md. sultan. ........ ...petitioner opp. partythe state of jharkhand coram:hon'ble mr. justice d.n. upadhyay -----for the petitioner : mr. a.k. kashyap, sr. advocate mr. s.n.p. roy, advocate for the opp. party : a.p.p. ----03 /10.10.2011 heard learned counsel for the parties. petitioner is accused in a case registered under section 498-a of the indian penal code. there is allegation against the petitioner that he has been committing torture on the complainant for want of more dowry. it is submitted that the petitioner happens to be father-in-law and he has no concern with the demand of dowry, if any, made by the husband from the complainant. as a matter of fact the petitioner had tried to pacify the matter but due to attitude of the complainant the matter could not be settled. learned counsel for the state opposed the prayer for bail. considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel, above named petitioner is directed to surrender in the court below within a fortnight and on such surrender or in the event of his arrest the petitioner shall be released on bail by the court below on furnishing bail bond of rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned chief judicial magistrate, sahibganj in connection with p.c.r. case no.15 of 2010 subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438 (2) of the cr.p.c.(d.n. upadhyay, j)nkc