Jharkhand High Court
Prema Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 10103 of 2021
------
1. Prema Devi
2. Sunita Devi
3. Basanti Devi ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Kr. Sah, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Addl. P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Gupta, Advocate
------
Order No.02 Dated- 10.01.2022
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
Learned counsel for the petitioners personally undertakes to
remove the defects as pointed out by the stamp reporter within two
weeks after resumption of the Court in physical mode.
In view of the personal undertaking of the learned counsel for
the petitioners, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are
ignored for the present.
Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this
Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with
Jainagar P.S. Case No.180 of 2021 registered under sections 147/149/
323/326/307/379/504/506/384 of the Indian Penal Code and under
Section 3/4 of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act.
The Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were members
of unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object of the
assembly attempted to murder the informant party and called the
wife of the informant to be a daain and caused hurt to them. It is
further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all
false and drawing attention of this Court to Annexure-2 at page
no.27-34 of the brief, which is the copy of the certified copy of the
judgment passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division,-I, Koderma in
Partition Suit No.07 of 1995, it is submitted that the wife of the
informant namely Sudama Devi filed the said suit inter alia against
the petitioner no.1 and others but the said suit was dismissed by the
said Judgment dated 16.10.2015. It is next submitted that the
witnesses namely Rina Devi, Sandeep Choudhary, Arti Devi and
Doman Yadav whose statements are appearing in paragraph nos.6-9
of the case diary who claimed to be the eye witness have stated about
Bulaki Yadav, Suresh Choudhary, Ashok Yadav, Baleshwar Yadav
etc. have been assaulted by the victims but they have not stated about
the three petitioners who are the females in the said occurrence. It is
further submitted that there is land dispute between the parties and
this case has been falsely foisted. It is then submitted that the
petitioners undertake to cooperate with the investigation 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 informant
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 S.D.J.M., Koderma, in connection with Jainagar P.S. Case
No.180 of 2021 with the condition that the petitioners will cooperate
with the investigation of the case and appear before the Investigating
Officer as and when noticed by him and will furnish their mobile
numbers and a copy of their Aadhar Cards in the court below with
the undertaking that they will not change their mobile numbers
during the pendency of the case subject to the conditions laid down
under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sonu/Gunjan-
