Birendra Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 416 Jhar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           B. A. No. 526 of 2022
                                   ....

          Birendra Kumar                                       ...... Petitioner
                             Versus
          The State of Jharkhand              ...... Opposite Party
                                -----
          CORAM:         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
                                -----

For the Petitioner :Mrs. Bandana Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate For the State : Mr. Md. Hatim, A.P.P.

For the Informant : Mrs. Rajni Singh, Advocate .....

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

.....

03/11.02.2022 The petitioner is an accused in connection with Satgawan P.S. Case No. 84 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. No. 1135 of 2021 registered for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

It is submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. It is submitted that from perusal of the FIR as well as the investigation made by the police it will appear that the marriage has taken place more than 7 years ago in the year 2014. It is submitted that during the investigation the police has found that the deceased had committed suicide by consuming poison, out of anger since the petitioner used to consume liquor and out of said anger she has consumed poison and hence no offence even under Section 306 of the I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner. It is submitted that from perusal of the FIR it is apparent that after the occurrence this petitioner and his father had taken the deceased to the hospital for treatment. It is submitted that all the witnesses, who have been examined during the investigation, had only raised suspicion that due to quarrel deceased has committed suicide but from perusal of the impugned order of rejection, it would appear that the learned Sessions Judge has specifically given a finding that out of anger the deceased has committed suicide. It is submitted that petitioner states that out of grave and sudden provocation by certain persons the FIR has been lodged by the father of the deceased but later on when the informant came to know about the real facts that the deceased has committed suicide out of anger then the informant has filed a joint compromise petition before the court below wherein it has been stated that they do not have any grievance against the petitioner's family and they do not want to proceed with the case. It is submitted that petitioner is ready to look up his three minor children (two sons and one daughter) who are helpless and still residing in the parental home of this petitioner. It is submitted that although FIR was lodged under section 302 IPC but the police has submitted the charge sheet only against the petitioner under section 306 IPC and no case has been found against parents-in-law and other family member of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also furnished the web copy of the judgment dated 09.02.2017 passed in CRM-M-37957-2015 in the case of Harmesh Singh and another Vs State of Punjab and another by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and submitted that in the light of the Compromise Petition between both side, the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh had quashed the FIR instituted under section 306 IPC by invoking the power under section 482 Cr.P.C. in order to maintain peace and harmony.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, submits at Bar that under the instruction of Manoj Mistry, who is the deponent and own brother of the petitioner, the petitioner and the deponent undertake that the petitioner will look after the children properly and will take utmost care in their future nourishment and development. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 08.10.2021 and hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

On the other hand learned counsel for the State has raised no objection. It is submitted the informant has shown willingness that the children may live with this petitioner and in their parental home.

Mrs. Rajni Singh, learned counsel for the informant has submitted that she has been instructed on behalf of the informant side to submit at Bar that the petitioner will look after the three children (i.e. two sons and one daughter) properly in future for their nourishment and will take utmost care as a Father and will make best efforts for their education and personality development.

It appears that the petitioner is husband of the deceased. It appears from perusal of the learned court below that the police has submitted charge sheet under section 306 IPC against this petitioner, showing lack of the evidence against the other parents-in-law of the deceased. However learned court below has taken cognizance under section 306/302 IPC.

Considering the undertaking given at Bar before this Court on behalf of the petitioner and on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the petitioner namely Birendra Kumar is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Miss Sanjibita Guin, Judicial Magistrate,1stClass, Koderma or her successor court subject to the condition that one of the bailors must be own relative and the petitioner shall co-operate during trial and shall remain present as when required by the learned court below.

However, liberty is also given to the informant to file necessary application in case of breach of Undertaking given before this Court on the part of the petitioner.

(Sanjay Prasad, J.) Bibha/