Neelam Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 4100 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Neelam Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 June, 2025

Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Ambuj Nath

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                        Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 210 of 2025

               Neelam Devi                        ----       ---   Appellant
                                                Versus
               The State of Jharkhand              ---       ---   Respondent
                                                   ---

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath

---

For the Appellant: M/s. Amrita Sinha, Advocate For the Resp.-State: M/s. Vishwanath Roy, Special P.P.

---

I.A. No. 2054 of 2025

07 / 19.06.2025 Heard Mrs. Amrita Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Vishwanth Roy, learned Special P.P.

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

3. The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302(B)/34 and Section 120B of the I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence u/s 302/34 of the I.P.C. along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-.

4. It has been alleged that the sons' of the informant had established a new factory of Tomato sauce. On 25.03.2022, one of the sons of the informant namely Mukesh Kumar Pandit who also happens to be the husband of the appellant had gone to the shop, but did not return in the night and in the next morning, his dead body was found.

5. Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that admittedly, there are no eye witnesses to the incident. It has been submitted that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence primarily on account of the telephonic conversation the appellant had with co-convict Ujjawal Sharma which in fact has been noted in the impugned judgment.

6. Learned Special P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.

7. On consideration of the materials available on record which seems to suggest that only on the basis of telephonic conversation, the appellant has been convicted, we are inclined to admit the appellant on bail. Accordingly, during the pendency of this appeal, appellant, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 556 of 2022.

8. The aforesaid I.A. stands allowed and disposed of.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

(Ambuj Nath, J) Ranjeet-Nandini/