Soumi Dutta vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 5006 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Soumi Dutta vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 April, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                                                                              2025:JHHC:11826

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                               W.P.(Cr.) No. 823 of 2023
         Soumi Dutta, daughter of Dipankar Duta, resident of Akota Apartment, North Office
         Para, P.O and P.s. Doranda, District- Ranchi.                      ..... Petitioner.
                                         Versus
            1. The State of Jharkhand
            2. Bhaskar Dutta, son of late Bishwanath Duta.
            3. Chanda Dutta, wife of Bhaskar Duta,
               Both resident of House No. 104, Bhaskar Bhawan, North Office Para, P.O
               and P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi.                          ...Respondents.

                                              ------

                     CORAM        :       SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

               For the petitioner(s):     Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate
               For the State       :      AC to GA-III
               For resp. Nos. 2 & 3:      Mr. Shailesh Poddar, Advocate.
                                                ------
11/21.04.2025:        In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to set aside the order

dated 2.9.2023 passed in ABP No. 1855 of 2023, whereby the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-III, Ranchi, has granted anticipatory bail to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for allegedly committing the offence under Section(s) 354/34, 354B/34, 323/34 and 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only on the ground that the case has been filed with oblique motive, the bail has been granted to respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 appears and opposes the prayer of the petitioner submitting that anticipatory bail was granted on 2.9.2023 and thereafter the respondents have furnished the bail bond and till date they are enjoying the privilege of bail without there being complaint of misuse.

From the facts of the case, I find that earlier an FIR was instituted under the aforesaid sections but the police submitted final report exonerating the accused persons coming to the conclusion that the case has been falsely lodged. The petitioner thereafter filed a protest petition, which was entertained and cognizance was taken on protest-cum-complaint.

After the cognizance was taken, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 preferred anticipatory bail which as allowed vide order dated 2.9.2023 after taking into consideration the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2022 0 AIR (SC) 3386 and also on the ground that there was a property dispute between the parties.

2025:JHHC:11826

Admittedly, on protest, the cognizance was taken. Earlier the investigation ended in favour of the accused persons as final report was submitted in their favour. Once the Court takes cognizance, based on protest petition, there cannot be any scope of investigation. When there is no scope of investigation, it will be futile to keep the accused in custody. Keeping the accused in custody will amount to pre- trial custody. This incarceration is not warranted.

There is nothing in the record which suggests that the respondents have misused the privilege of bail or have threatened the witnesses or have tampered with the evidences of this case. Thus, the Court correctly applied the judgment of Satendra Kumar Antil (Supra) in this case and has granted anticipatory bail to respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

I find no illegality has been committed by the Court concerned while granting bail to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on 02.09.2023 in ABP No. 1855 of 2023. According, this petition is dismissed.

Anu/-Cp3. (ANANDA SEN, J.)