Jharkhand High Court
Sarita Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 10 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 3997 of 2020
------
1. Sarita Devi
2. Samar Mahato @ Samar Mahto
3. Durga Das Mahata @ Durga Das Mahatha
... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ... Opposite Parties
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Praveen Kr. Appu, Addl. P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sunil Singh, Advocate
------
Order No.03 Dated- 10.08.2021
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this
Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with
Complaint Case No.765 of 2018 whereby cognizance has been taken
under sections 420/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner no.3 executed
a sale deed in favour of the petitioner no.1 and the petitioner no.2 is
the husband of the petitioner no.1 and it is alleged that the certified
copy of the judgment filed by the petitioners in this case of Title Suit
No. 209 of 1934 of the court of Munsif, Purulia dated 13 th June, 1935
is a forged document. It is further submitted by the learned counsel
for the petitioners that the allegations against the petitioners are all
false and in fact the annexure-4 of this bail application at page nos.
34-42 of this anticipatory bail application is a genuine certified copy
rather, the annexure-A of the counter-affidavit filed by the opposite
party no.2-complainant which is also purported to be a certified
copy, of the same judgment of Title Suit No. 209 of 1934 of the court
of Munsif, Purulia dated 13th June, 1935 is a forged document. It is
next submitted that the dispute between the parties is at best a civil
dispute. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners undertake to
cooperate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the
petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.
Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as
discussed above, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the
above named petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Hence, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of six
weeks from the date of this order, they shall be released on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand)
each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class-cum-Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.
Division), Bokaro, in connection with Complaint Case No.765 of
2018 with the condition that the petitioners will cooperate with the
trial of the case subject to the conditions laid down under section 438
(2) Cr. P.C.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sonu/Gunjan-
