Maheshwari Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand .... .... .... ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 6219 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Maheshwari Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand .... .... .... ... on 26 September, 2025

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                         ( 2025:JHHC:30600 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   A.B.A. No. 5603 of 2025
                                  ------

Maheshwari Devi, aged about 72 years, wife of Saryu Mahto @ Saryu Dangi @ Sarju Dangi, resident of Village Suji, Jhapa, P.O. Dadpur, P.S. -Chouparan, District -Hazaribagh.

.... .... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opp. Party

------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, Addl. P.P.

------

Order No.02 Dated- 26.09.2025

Heard the parties.

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Chouparan P.S. Case No.181 of 2024 registered under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for anticipatory bail and earlier the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 13.02.2025 in A.B.A. No. 981 of 2025. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the only fresh ground is that the co-accused -Sarju Dangi, the husband of the petitioner faced the trial and he has been acquitted vide judgment dated 10.06.2025 in S.T. Case No. 520 of 2024 after all the seven witnesses were declared hostile consequent upon their not supporting the case of the prosecution. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that only because the witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution in respect of one of the accused that neither means nor implies that they will not support the case of the prosecution in respect of other accused. Hence, it is submitted that the acquittal of the co-accused is not a ground to review the prayer for anticipatory bail which has already been rejected on merits. It is next submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of having assaulted the deceased and co-accused persons having assaulted the deceased and thereafter the deceased took poison and died during the course of her treatment. Hence, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case but the petitioner is absconding after rejection of her anticipatory bail application by this Court vide order dated 13.02.2025 in A.B.A. No. 981 of 2025 and is not cooperating with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that acquittal of the co-accused person is not a ground for reviewing the prayer for anticipatory bail which has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.02.2025 in A.B.A. No. 981 of 2025.

Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is rejected for the same reasons as mentioned in the order dated 13.02.2025 in A.B.A. No. 981 of 2025.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 26.09.2025 Sonu/Gunjan-