Jharkhand High Court
Laxmi Devi @ Sinpur Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 134 of 2020
....
Laxmi Devi @ Sinpur Devi ...... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Nayak, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha,A.P.P.
.....
I.A. No. 1582 of 2020
06/12.04.2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State.
2. The present Interlocutory Application has been filed by
the appellant for bail during pendency of the present criminal
appeal.
3. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed against the
judgment of conviction dated 10.01.2020 and order of sentence
dated 14.01.2020 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge,
1st, Khunti in connection with S. T. No. 140 of 2019 corresponding
to G. R. No. 341 of 2017 arising out of Khunti (AHTU) P. S. Case
No. 04 of 2017 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the
offence under Sections 370 and 363 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of seven(7) years with a
fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of three years under
Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and also a fine of Rs. 5000/-
and in default of payment further undergo S.I. for three months
and three months each. Both the sentences have been directed to
run concurrently.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant that the victim has not supported the allegation against
the appellant and even the mother of the victim girl has been
examined as P.W.-2 has stated that she had informed her before
going to New Delhi and no role has been played by this appellant,
rather co-accused Ishwar had taken her to New Delhi. It is further
submitted that P. W. -3, i.e father of the victim girl has stated at
para-23 of the case diary that he had put his signature on the blank
paper, which has been converted into the FIR on the instigation of
the villagers. The appellant is in custody since 23.03.2019 and has
got no criminal antecedent and as such, she may be enlarged on
bail.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has
opposed the bail. It is submitted that the appellant has induced the
victim girl and she along with one Ishwr had taken her to New
Delhi and she was recovered by the police and this fact has been
supported by P.W.-6, who is the I.O. of this case. It is further
submitted from the FIR, it is clear that victim girl was taken by
this appellant along with another accused. It is submitted that P.W.-
1 and P.W.-2 namely Payari Dhanwar and Mangri Mundain have
also stated that the victim girl was recovered at New Delhi and as
such, her prayer for bail is fit to be rejected.
6. From perusal of the Lower Court Records and considering
the submissions of learned counsel for the both the sides, it would
reveal that although the appellant and the other co-accused are
alleged to be taken her to New Delhi, however, during course of
trial, while the victim girl was examined as P.W.- Payari Dhanwar.
However, she has stated in para 22 to 24 that she on her own with
prior information of her mother, had gone for New Delhi for doing
some domestic work and earning some amount. It also transpires
that P.W.-2, Mangri Mundain i.e. the mother of the victim girl has
stated that the victim girl, on her own, had gone to the New Delhi.
It appears from the evidence of P.W.-3, Dimbu Munda, father of
the victim girl that has not supported the case against the
appellant.
7. On consideration of the aforesaid fact, during pendency of
this Criminal appeal, the appellant, Laxmi Devi @ Sinpur Devi is
directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of learned District and
Sessions Judge, 1st, Khunti in connection with S. T. No. 140 of
2019 corresponding to G. R. No. 341 of 2017 arising out of Khunti
(AHTU) P. S. Case No. 04 of 2017, subject to the condition that
one of the bailor should be blood relation of the appellant having
landed property in his/her own specific name and the appellant
shall file undertaking before the Court below that she will not
indulge herself in such type of crime in future again failing which
the prosecution will be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of
her bail.
8. The Court below, however, before issuing the release
order, shall satisfy itself that the appellant has remained in custody
for more than two and half years and if this statement is found to
be incorrect, the release order shall not be issued by the trial Court
and the matter shall be reported to this Court.
9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the office of
Superintendent of Police, Khunti, who will watch the conduct of
the appellant for a period of five years from today and will take
appropriate steps, if the appellant appears to be involved in such
type of crime in future again.
10. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1582 of 2020 stands allowed
and disposed of.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Kamlesh/
