Jharkhand High Court
Dinesh Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand. ... ... Opposite ... on 17 June, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:15925
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.6875 of 2024
------
1. Dinesh Singh, aged about 67 years, son of Nageshwar Singh,
resident of village Bariyaun, P.O. Maskedih, P.S. Chalkusha,
District Hazaribagh (Jharkhand)
2. Geeta Devi, aged about 57 years, wife of Dinesh Singh
3. Shashikant Singh, aged about 38 years, son of Dinesh Singh
Nos. 2 and 3 residents of Near Bijli office, P.O. and P.S.
Koderma, District Koderma (Jharkhand) .... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ... ... Opposite Party
------
CORAM: SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sahil, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, A.P.P.
: Mr. Arun Kumar, A.P.P.
: Mr. Rishav Kumar, A.P.P.
-----
04/ 17.06.2025
Heard the parties.
2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 and
484 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been
preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest for offences
registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code in
connection with Koderma P.S. Case No. 222 of 2023, S.T. No. 47
of 2024, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions
Judge-III, Koderma.
3. The petitioners are the father-in-law, mother-in-law and
the brother-in-law of the deceased.
4. The case is filed under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal
Code, alleging that the deceased who is the wife of Ravikant
Singh was murdered by the petitioners along with her husband.
5. During course of investigation, though the petitioners were
2025:JHHC:15925
named in the FIR, the charge-sheet was not submitted against
them and they were exonerated on the ground that there was no
material against them. However, during the trial of the husband,
these petitioners have been arrayed by invoking Section 319 of
the Cr.P.C. as according to the Court, there is material surfaced
during evidence to summon these petitioners to face the trial.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
submits that the evidence based on which the petitioners have
been summoned is the statement of the children of the deceased
who have stated about the involvement of the petitioners during
evidence, but surprisingly, while their statement was recorded
under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., they have not whispered any
word against these petitioners, rather there was specific
allegation against their father. As per him the children while
giving the statement before the police stated that these
petitioners were not there. He submits that this difference clearly
suggests that the children were tutored and these petitioners
have been falsely implicated.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that since
after summons, the petitioners did not appear, the court has
issued warrant of arrest, thus, the petitioners do not deserve
anticipatory bail. So far as the merits is concerned, he submits
that the children had given a specific statement before the Court
about the involvement and overt act against these petitioners.
8. After hearing the parties, I am of the opinion that it would
2025:JHHC:15925
not be proper for this Court to give a finding on the statement
which the children have made while deposing as a witness and
their statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. If this Court
gives a finding, the same will definitely influence the trial which
is not my intention.
9. The fact which remains admitted in this case is that the
petitioners were not sent up for trial. They have been summoned
by invoking Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioners were
initially summoned but since they have not appeared, the Court
has issued warrant of arrest.
10. In view of the judgment of Satender Kumar Antil vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2021) 10 SCC
773, NBW may be cancelled or converted into a bailable
warrant/summons on undertaking that the person will appear
before the Court.
11. Since the petitioners have been directed to appear in terms
of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., I am of the opinion that there is no
apprehension of the arrest of the petitioners. Further, there is no
question of investigation also. It is only the petitioners who has
to face the trial as an accused. If the court is satisfied that the
petitioners will neither tamper with the evidence nor will abscond
the trial, there is no ground for the Court to detain the petitioners
and take them in custody.
12. Thus, I direct the petitioners to appear before the Court
concerned and the learned Trial Court will only consider as to
2025:JHHC:15925
whether the petitioners will abscond or not or whether they will
tamper with the evidence. If the Court is of the opinion that there
is no scope of the petitioners to tamper with the evidence and
they will cooperate with the trial and appear as and when
required, the Court may order as per the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
13. Considering the nature and the fact of the case, this
Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
Rashmi/Cp-3
