Jharkhand High Court
Gaytree Devi @ Gayatri Kumari @ Gayatree ... vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 10 November, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:33493)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.606 of 2025
------
1. Gaytree Devi @ Gayatri Kumari @ Gayatree Devi Prasad Aged
about 57 years W/o Radheshyam Das
2. Rahul Kumar @ Golu Aged about 25 years S/o Radheshyam Das
Petitioner No.1 and 2 are R/o Bajrang Nagar, Kashi Bazar,
Ratanpur, Chapra, P.O.- Bhagwan Bazar, P.S. Bhagawan Bazar,
District- Saran, State- Bihar-814301
3. Radheshyam Das @ Radheyshyam Das Aged about 60 years S/o
Late Ganesh Das
4. Dolly Devi @ Dolly Kumari Aged about 43 years W/o Sri Bharat
Kumar Das
5. Anik Kumar @ Chhotu Aged about 20 years S/o Radheshyam Das
Petitioner No. 3, 4 and 5 are R/o Tata Road, Near Magistrate
Colony, P.O. and P.S. - Sadar, Chaibasa, District- West Singhbhum-
833201 ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Anup Kr. Agarwal, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Subodh Kr. Dubey, AddlP.P.
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- I.A. No.14627 of 2025
Heard the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this interlocutory
application has been filed for early hearing of this Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition.
(2025:JHHC:33493)
Since, the hearing of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is taken
up today, hence, this interlocutory application stands disposed of being
infructuous.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the order dated
03.09.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa in
connection with Chaibasa Sadar P.S. Case No.65 of 2023.
2. Initially, though the case was instituted involving the offences
punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325, 427, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian
Penal Code but police after investigation of the case, submitted charge-
sheet against the petitioners for having in furtherance of their common
intention committing the murder of Vinod Kumar Das. The petitioners
did not appear after submission of the charge-sheet in the trial court
even though they were on police bail. The learned trial court
considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Pradeep Ram vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another reported
in 2019 Supreme (SC) 716 and also reported in (2019) 17 SCC 326
paragraph-31 to 31.4 of which read as under:-
"31. In view of the foregoing discussions, we arrive at the
following conclusions in respect of a circumstance where after
grant of bail to an accused, further cognizable and non-bailable
offences are added:
31.1. The accused can surrender and apply for bail for
newly added cognizable and non-bailable offences. In
event of refusal of bail, the accused can certainly be
(2025:JHHC:33493)
arrested.
31.2. The investigating agency can seek order from the
court under Section 437(5) or 439(2) CrPC for arrest
of the accused and his custody.
31.3. The court, in exercise of power under Section
437(5) or 439(2) CrPC, can direct for taking into
custody the accused who has already been granted bail
after cancellation of his bail. The court in exercise of
power under Section 437(5) as well as Section 439(2)
can direct the person who has already been granted
bail to be arrested and commit him to custody on
addition of graver and non-bailable offences which may
not be necessary always with order of cancelling of
earlier bail." (Emphasis supplied)
cancelled the bail granted to the petitioners in view of
commission of the serious offence punishable under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code by the petitioners and taking cognizance of the said
offence by the learned Magistrate. The landed Magistrate then issued
non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation
against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that the petitioners
have co-operated with the trial. It is further submitted that the
cognizance of the offence has been taken arbitrarily. It is also submitted
that the learned trial court considered the judgment of Pradeep Ram vs.
The State of Jharkhand & Another (supra) erroneously. Hence, it is
submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be
allowed.
4. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand
vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant
Cr.M.P. and submits that in view of the settled principle of law settled
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pradeep Ram vs.
The State of Jharkhand & Another (supra) particularly in paragraph-
(2025:JHHC:33493)
31.3, the learned Judicial Magistrate was empowered to cancel the bail
in view of submission of the charge-sheet against the petitioners for
having committed the offences punishable under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code. Hence, there is no illegality in the said order dated
03.09.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa in
connection with Chaibasa Sadar P.S. Case No.65 of 2023. It is, therefore,
submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.
5. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after
carefully going through the materials available in the record it is
pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
the case of Pradeep Ram vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another (supra)
has categorically held in paragraph-31 of the said judgment by
answering the question "Whether in a criminal case, where an accused
has been bailed out, if subsequently new offence is added, is it
necessary that the bail earlier granted should be cancelled for taking the
accused in custody"; that in such an eventuality, the court can exercise
the power under Section 437 (5) or 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, can direct for taking into custody the accused who has been
granted bail, after cancellation of his bail on addition of graver and non-
bailable offence.
6. Now, coming to the facts of the case; the undisputed fact remains
that the charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioners for
having committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code and the cognizance of the said offence has already
been taken by the learned Magistrate.
(2025:JHHC:33493)
7. Under such circumstances, keeping in view the seriousness of the
offence involved, this Court do not find any illegality in the impugned
order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Chaibasa in connection with Chaibasa Sadar P.S. Case No.65 of 2023 by
which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa has cancelled the
bail granted to the petitioners on addition of graver and non-bailable
offences.
8. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 10th of November, 2025
AFR/ Animesh
Uploaded on- 12/11/2025
