Jharkhand High Court
Batulan Bibi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.4104 of 2021
------
Batulan Bibi .... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... ....Opposite Party
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Adv.
: Mr. Pranabesh Kr. Paul, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, P.P
------
Order No.02 Dated- 05.07.2021
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects
pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
In view of personal undertaking given by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the
present.
Apprehending her arrest in connection with Madhupur P.S. Case No. 335
of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 921 of 2016 (S.T. No.164 of 2017) instituted
under Sections 341, 342, 324, 326, 307, 498A, 304B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation
against the petitioner is that the petitioner being mother-in-law has committed
dowry death of her daughter-in-law. It is submitted that the allegation against
the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the co-accused-brother-in-law
and father-in-law of the deceased who have already faced the trial has since
been acquitted by the judgment dated 26th May, 2020 in Sessions Trial No. 164
of 2017 by the court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar. Drawing
attention of this Court towards Anneuxre-3 at page nos.18-23 of the brief, it is
submitted that during the said trial, in the cross-examination, the father of the
deceased of this case who was examined as P.W.-1 stated that his daughter
lived with her in-law's house and she never made any complain and similarly
other witnesses also stated that the deceased had good relation with her in-laws
and never made any complain. It is also submitted that the co-accused, with
similar allegation, has been given the privilege of the anticipatory bail by this
Court vide order dated 13.01.2020 passed in A.B.A. No.9380 of 2019. It is also
submitted that the petitioner undertakes that she will not annoy or disturb the
informant or any of his family members in any manner during the pendency of
the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-
operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the
petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
Considering the submissions of learned counsels and the facts and
circumstances stated above, I am inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail
to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the
Court within six weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or
surrendering, she will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to
the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar in connection
with Madhupur P.S. Case No. 335 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 921 of 2016
(S.T. No.164 of 2017) with the condition that she will co-operate with the
investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and
when noticed by him and furnish her mobile number and photocopy of the
Aadhar Card with an undertaking that she will not change her mobile
number during the pendency of the case and with condition that she will not
annoy or disturb the informant or any of his family members in any manner
during the pendency of the case and subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Pappu/
