Riya Kumari vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 1214 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Riya Kumari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 29 July, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                                                                         2025:JHHC:20779
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                               A.B.A. No. 3956 of 2025
                                     -----
        Riya Kumari, W/o Prem Kumar, R/o Kathal More, Simaliya, P.O. & P.S.- Ratu, Dist-
        Ranchi
                                                            .... Petitioner(s).
                                            Versus
        1.The State of Jharkhand
        2.Basant Kumar, S/o Late Anil Kumar Sinha, R/o Kali Mandir Road, Bardman
        Compound, Lalpur, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, Dist- Ranchi
                                                                 ... Opp. Party(s)
                                     ------

                 CORAM      :     SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

        For the Petitioner(s)     : Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, Advocate
        For the State             : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, AddI. P.P.
                                        .........

02/ 29.07.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the

State.

2. This is an application filed by the petitioner praying for grant of anticipatory bail under Sections 482 and 484 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 apprehending her arrest for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC, in connection with Ratu P.S. Case No.42 of 2025, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi.

3. As per the First Information Report, it is alleged that the petitioner approached the informant for helping her with funds for securing bail to her husband. Informant paid a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-. Thereafter, after getting bail, when the informant asked for money from the husband of the petitioner, he came with an offer to sell a piece of land measuring 20 decimals at a consideration of Rs.80,00,000/-. On finalization of talks, Rs.11,00,000/- cash was paid. Thereafter informant when asked the husband of the petitioner to execute agreement in his name, he started avoiding and said that the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- given at the time of securing bail would also be adjusted in this transaction and also got the informant to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- by cheque in the name of Quayum. In this manner, a total amount of Rs.17,0,000/- was paid towards agreement for sale, but the husband of the petitioner instead of executing the agreement kept on avoiding.

4. The offence punishable is for maximum period of 7 years or less.

5. Admittedly, the notice under Section 41(A) of Cr.P.C. has been issued to the petitioner and the petitioner has sent reply through the relative, but she did not herself personally appeared before the Investigating Officer. Though this is not a proper compliance of notice under Section 41(A) of Cr.P.C. but since, the aforesaid notice has been issued, it can be presumed that the police do not warrant to arrest the petitioner.

6. Petitioner should appear before the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the investigation and thereafter, appear before the Court and take appropriate steps and on her appearance before the Court after appearing before the I.O. personally, the Court will pass an appropriate order in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51.

7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.

(ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S./