18.

On a careful consideration of the above definitions and ingredients

what appear is that if someone put the others intentionally in fear to any
injury and thereby, dishonestly induces that person who has been put into
fear to deliver to the person any property or valuable security or anything
signed or sealed or which may be converted into valuable security shall
be liable to be punished for 'extortion'.
19. Thus, what is necessary for constituting an offence of 'extortion' is
that the prosecution must prove that on account of being put in fear of
injury, the victim was voluntarily delivering any particular property to
the man putting him into fear. If there was no delivery of property, then
the most important ingredient for constituting the offence of 'extortion'
would not be available. Further, if a person voluntarily delivers any
property without there being any fear of injury, an offence of 'extortion'
cannot be said to have been committed.
20. Considering the aforesaid interpretation of the offence of 'extortion',
as defined under Section 383 of the IPC, when I look to the facts of the
case in hand, I find that there is nothing on record to show that any
person delivered any property to the petitioners under any fear of injury.
Even on perusal of the case-diary, there is no material to support such
allegation.
21. It is true that an intent to extort money may be inferred from
circumstances. If it appears that the object is to collect revenue honestly
believing to be due and owning to the Gram Panchayat, the alleged act of
the petitioners would not attract the ingredients of the offence of
'extortion'. Criminal Miscellaneous No.393 of 2015------
Suryamunni Devi @ Suryamunna Devi ... vs State Of Bihar
& Anr on 13 July, 2016
447, 384. 504, 506/34 Classification and details to be mentioned
from First schedule of CrPC
383. Extortion.—Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any
injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the
person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, or valuable
security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a
valuable security, commits “extortion”.
Illustrations
(a) A threatens to publish a defamatory libel concerning Z unless Z gives
him money. He thus induces Z to give him money.
A has committed extortion.
(b) A threatens Z that he will keep Z's child in wrongful confinement,
unless Z will sign and deliver to A a promissory note
binding Z to pay certain monies to A. Z sings and delivers the note. A has
committed extortion.
(c) A threatens to send club-men to plough up Z's field unless Z will sign
and deliver to B a bond binding Z under a penalty
to deliver certain produce to B, and thereby induces Z to sign and deliver
the bond. A has committed extortion.
(d) A, by putting Z in fear of grievous hurt, dishonestly induces Z to sign
or affix his seal to a blank paper and deliver it to
A. Z sings and delivers the paper to A. Here, as the paper so signed may
be converted into a valuable security. A has committed
extortion.
384. Punishment for extortion.—Whoever commits extortion shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
385. Putting person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion.—
Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts any person in fear,
or attempts to put any person in fear, of any injury, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
two years, or with fine, or with both.
441. Criminal trespass.—Whoever enters into or upon property in the
possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate,
insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having
lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there
with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with
intent to commit an offence, is said to commit “criminal trespass”.
447. Punishment for criminal trespass.—Whoever commits criminal
trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to three months, or with fine which
may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both
504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.—
Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any
person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will
cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with
both.
506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.—Whoever commits the
offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine,
or with both;

IN,
The Court of Additional Sessions JudgeV
MUZAFFARPUR
Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 1331 of 2021
Ravi Kumar & Another---------------------Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar---------------------- Opposite Party

The humble submissions on behalf of the

petitioners named above;
Most Respectfully Sheweth:—
1. That the petitioners have filed this case for grant of Anticipatory Bail
who apprehend arrest in connection with Ahiyapur P.S. Case No. 335 of
2019.
2. That Ahiyapur P.S. Case No. 335 of 2019 has been registered under
Sections 447, 384,504,506/34 of I.P.C.
3.That Section 384 of IPC provides
3. That on the direction of this Hon’ble Court one of the employer of the
O.P. namely Wilhelmsen Ship Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. has
provided information regarding monthly remuneration of the O.P.
4. That on perusal of the records of this case it is found that the worked
on contract basis for the abovementioned company and earned about
11,000 US Dollars per month during his ship duty. 11000 US Dollars
equals to about Rs.7,15000 ( rupees seven lacks fifteen thousand).
5. That after the petitioner was ousted from her sasural the regularly went
on ship duty. The O.P. worked for different companies and he managed
to get his remuneration in different account which is not within the
knowledge of the petitioner.
 6. That the OP. went on ship duty during November 2015 to March
2016, June 2016 to July 2016, June 2017 to August 2017 and again in the
month of January—February 2018 and earned huge amount of money.
7. That the INCOME and ASSETS of O.P. are as under:----
(1) Monthly Income -----more than Rs. 4,00,000 (rupees four lacks)
per month.
(2) Residential Flat in Kolkata
(3) Residential land at Katihar
(4) Three-story Residential house at Katihar
(5) The O.P. and her parents maintain several bank accounts, gold
bonds and fixed deposits of which only few are within knowledge of the
Petitioner.

Important Dates:---
24-05-202016—The O.P. filed Matrimonial Case No. 235 of 2016 (Now
Matrimonial Case No. 340 of 2017) for so called restitution of conjugal
rights at Katihar. The aforesaid case is actually a divorce case in the
garb of a case for so called restitution of conjugal rights.
May 2016— As a careful planning and to avoid giving alimony to the
petitioner in future O.P. transferred his residential flat located at Kolkata
in the name of his elder sister about 10 days prior to filing the
abovementioned case for so called restitution of conjugal rights. This
elder sister of O.P. namely Preety Sinha has divorced her husband in the
year 2013 and is now working as a clerk in Kangra Co-Operative Bank.
The said sister has a daughter also who studies in a boarding school.
June 2016—Forced by the attitude of the O.P. and finding no other way
the petitioner disclosed her sufferings in public and filed Complaint Case
No. 1193 of 2016 Under Sec 498A of I.P.C. and ¾ Of Dowry
Prohibition Act against the O.P. and his parents which is pending in the
Court of S.D.J.M. Muzaffarpur (East). The O.P. is on bail in that very
case.
July 2016—The petitioner filed the instant Maintenance case.
Otober 2016—Father of O.P. Anil Kumar Sinha filed Complaint case
No. 2104 of 2016 in Katihar District Court falsely implicating the
petitioner’s father mother and her maternal uncle. This case has been
filed to harass
and pressurize the petitioner and her parents to meet the demand of
dowry by the O.P.
12-07-2017—The petitioner filed an application under Sec 106 of
Indian Evidence Act praying therein to direct the O.P. to file details
about his real income and assets.
01-09-2017—This Hon’ble Court directed the O.P. to file details about
his income and assets and statements of his Bank Accounts and a copy
of his updated C.D.C and Passport.
11-01-2018—The O.P. filed an application in Complaint Case No.1193
of 2016 and sought permission of the court to go out of INDIA for job
purpose. The Hon’ble Court of SDJM Muzaffarpur (East) granted him
the permission and asked him to be present on the next date fixed for
hearing of the said case. The O.P. has deliberately concealed this
information from this Hon’ble Court.
24-01-2018—An application supported by Affidavit dated 11-01-2018
itself was filed on behalf of the O.P. In this application evasive, false and
fabricated information was filed by the O.P. The O.P. has deliberately
concealed his real income in order to avoid paying maintenance to the
petitioner and her daughter.
Issues involved:----
Relation---Due to strained relations between the parties the
Petitioner and her daughter are living with petitioner’s
parents at Muzaffarpur
The petitioner claims that due to demand of dowry she was
tortured regularly by her husband and mother-in-law and she was
beaten up and was forced to leave her sasural on 09-5-2015 and
since then she is living with her parents at Muzaffarpur. The
petitioner has filed Complaint case No.1193 of 2016 under Section
498A of I.P.C. and Sec ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act which is
pending in the Court of SDJM Muzaffarpur (East).
 The petitioner apprehends threat to her life in her sasural—
Paragraph 20 of the maintenance petition.
Para 8 of the W.S. states that the O.P. informed the petitioner
on 07-5-15 that he was going for ship duties for 3 months. On 08-5-
2015 petitioner’s parents suddenly came to her sasural in the night
and the petitioner left her sasural with her parents at 3:30 A.M. on
09-5-2015 on her own free will. Actually the O.P. has accepted
in his cross examination that he did not went on ship on 9 th May
2015 and he could not inform the name of the Agent and
accepted that he has got no papers regarding this.-----
(Paragraph 46 and 47 of O.P.’s cross-examination.) This proves
that the O.P. is lying and confirms the case of the petitioner.
(IV) Income and assets----The O.P. works as a Chief Officer in
the Merchant Navy and earns about 3.5 lacks per month on average
The O.P. has claimed that he works in a private company
and earns a salary of Rs.5500 per month.
The fact remains that the O.P. really works in Merchant
Navy as he has claimed in Matrimonial Case No 235 of 20126 filed
by himself. He regularly goes on ship.
Ship going period of O.P. after the petitioner was ousted from
her sasural are as under---
21-06-2015 to 20-09-2015
24-11-2015 to 07-04-2016
25-06-2016 to 12-07-2016
24-06-2017 to 05-08-2017
In fact the petitioner obtained permission from the Court of
SDJM Muzaffarpur (East) on 11-01-2018 for going on ship job
outside India-The application of the O.P. dated 11-01-2018 was
placed on record by the petitioner. The O.P. has deliberately
concealed this information from this Hon’ble Court. Actually the
O.P. has filed an application supported with an affidavit dated 11-
01-2016 itself before this Hon’ble Court and provided meager
information about his assets and income and concealed his real
income.
 The O.P. has deliberately transferred his income and assets in
the name of his parents and his sisters and now he is falsely
claiming that he has not earned any money from merchant navy.
The O.P. transferred his residential flat in Kolkata in the name of
his elder sister Preety Sinha who divorced her husband in the year
2013 and is now working as a clerk in Kangra co-operative Bank.
The loan advanced against the said residential flat was cleared in
October 2015 and the said flat was transferred in May 2016 in order
to avoid paying any alimony to the petitioner because the O.P. was
planning to divorce the petitioner and further yhis evil design he has
manipulated the entire story.The O.P.’s mother is a housewife and
his father is a pensioner and he is getting a pension of Rs. 27
thousand per month. How can parents and sister of O.P. can afford
to maintain a hefty sum in their Bank accounts? Actually the O.P.
earns more than 4 lacks per month and is trying to avoid paying any
money as maintenance to his wife and daughter. The O.P. can
easily pay rupees one lack per month as maintenance to the
petitioner and her daughter.
The O.P. has deliberately concealed his real income. The Law as
settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts by their
Judgments clearly mandates that in Matrimonial Cases it is the
husband who has to prove his real income because he only has
knowledge of his earnings and the destitute wife cannot be expected
to know the real income of his estranged husband.
At present the O.P. is on ship duty after institution of these
cases he is getting his earning in another Bank Account which
only in the knowledge of the O.P. himself and he is concealing
the
same. Therefore presumption goes against the O.P. The O.P.
has several bank accounts, gold bonds and shares in his name
and in the name of his parents and sister which is known to the
O.P. himself.
On a direction from this Hon’ble Court the company who
employed the O.P. have confirmed that the O.P. went on ship
duty in the year 2017 and 2018 and he was paid emoluments at
the rate of Rs. 7.15 lacks per month. The O.P. has confessed
that on an average he used to go on ship duty for about six
months in a year.
As per the decisions of Hon’ble High Courts and other
higher courts a person who is efficient and skilled has to pay
maintenance to his wife and children according to his capacity
to earn when he conceals his real income from the court. In this
case the O.P. has earning capacity of more than 3.5 lacks per
month and he can easily pay about one lack per month as
maintenance to his wife and daughter.
In view of the circumstances mentioned above it is submitted
that the petitioner may be awarded Rs 100,000 per month as
maintenance to herself and her daughter. The relevant documents
are placed on record in this case.