Jharkhand High Court
Geeta Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.7923 of 2021
------
1. Geeta Devi
2. Pramila Mosomat @ Shila Baba
.... .... .... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... ....Opposite Party
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Addl.P.P
------
Order No.02 Dated- 22.10.2021
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
Learned counsel for the petitioners 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
petitioners, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the
present.
Apprehending their arrest in connection with Tinpahar P.S. Case No. 40
of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No. 741 of 2018 instituted under Sections 498-A,
304-B of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant
of privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1-
Geeta Devi has been arrested, hence, he does not want to press the prayer
for anticipatory bail of the petitioner no.1-Geeta Devi.
Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner no.1-
Geeta Devi is rejected as not pressed.
So far the petitioner no.2 is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner no.2 is the married sister-in-law of the
deceased Karuna Devi. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner
no.2 is false. It is next submitted that the co-accused Kashi @ Kashi Nath
Mandal and Fulo Mnadal have faced the trial in S.T. Case No.21 of 2021 and
vide judgment dated 23.06.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-I,
Rajmahal they have been acquitted, consequent upon the P.W.-4 of the said
trial, who is the informant of this case stated in her examination-in-chief that
though she instituted the present case but she does not know how her daughter
died and P.Ws.5 to 8 of the said trial stated in the trial court that they have no
knowledge about the occurrence. P.W.1 and 2 have stated that they were
hearsay witnesses. It is then submitted that the petitioner no.2 is living
separately from the deceased and her husband. It is lastly submitted that the
petitioner no.2 is ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation of the
case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner no.2 be given the privileges of
anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner no.2.
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 no.2. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the
Court within six weeks from today and in the event of her 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 SDJM, Rajmahal in connection with Tinpahar P.S.
Case No. 40 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No. 741 of 2018 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 subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Pappu/
