Sushila Kumari vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 405 Jhar

                            -1-

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
           Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.860 of 2022
                         ---------

Sushila Kumari                         .....    Appellant
                         Versus
The State of Jharkhand                 ..... Respondent
                         ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

---------

For the Appellant : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P.

---------

06/Dated: 23.01.2023 I.A. No.8062 of 2022

Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, learned A.P.P.

This interlocutory application has been preferred by the appellant for grant of bail to her during the pendency of this appeal.

The appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 302 & 435 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

It has been alleged that the appellant had friendship with the brother of the informant but on one pretext or the other, the marriage was getting delayed.

It has further been alleged that the appellant had called the brother of the informant who had arrived on a Maruti Omni vehicle and on the way, she had put petrol over the brother of the informant and set him ablaze. P.W.4 is an eyewitness to the occurrence to the effect that he had seen the vehicle, having been put on fire and one girl had jumped out of the vehicle and started fleeing. He has further stated that the person, who was burnt, was the younger brother of the informant and the lady, who had jumped out of the vehicle, was the present appellant.

Although learned counsel for the appellant submits

that there are no eyewitnesses to the occurrence and the appellant has been implicated only on account of the fact that she was having a love affair with the brother of the informant and she did not have any motive for committing such murder, but regard being had to the evidence of the witnesses including P.W.4, it appears that it was the prosecutrix who had poured petrol over the deceased and set him ablaze and in view of the strong circumstances as has been noted in the impugned judgment, we are not inclined to admit the appellant on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is hereby, rejected.

The aforesaid I.A. stands rejected.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Ambuj Nath, J.) BS/-