Partly allowed

Savitri Devi And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC12 Jul 2018A.B.A./272/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application of petitioner No. 2 due to direct allegations, while directing other five petitioners to surrender within four weeks for bail eligibility upon appearing before the lower court.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail of petitioner No. 2 rejected; other petitioners directed to surrender within four weeks for bail.

Savitri Devi And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr. — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 272 of 2018

¶2

Savitri Devi

¶3

Raghu Prajapati @ Radhi Prjapati

¶4

Bhim Prajapati

¶5

Mukesh Prjapati

¶6

Naresh Prajapati

¶7

Sangeeta Devi @ Sangeeta Kumari @ Sangita Devi

¶8

…… Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶11

Priyanka Devi

¶12

…… Opposite Parties

¶13

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

¶14

For the Petitioners : Mr. Vijay Kr. Sharma, Advocate For the State : A.P.P ---------

¶15

05/Dated: 12/07/2018

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with the case registered under Sections 498A, 323, 379, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

Under order dated 26.04.2018, all the petitioners and O.P. No.2 were directed to remain physically present before this Court.

¶18

Today, when the case is called out, O.P. No.2 is present but petitioners are not present.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. It is also submitted that petitioner No.1 is the mother-in-law, petitioner No.2 is the father-in-law, petitioner No.3 is the Dewar, petitioner No. 4 is the brother-in-law, petitioner No.5 is the uncle-in-law(Mama) and petitioner No.6 is the sister-in-law of the complainant.

¶20

Learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶21

In the fact and circumstances of the case, petitioner Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 namely, Savitri Devi, Bhim Prajapati, Mukesh Prjapati, Naresh Prjapati and Sangeeta Devi @ Sangeeta Kumari @ Sangita Devi are directed to surrender in the Court below within four weeks from the date of this order and in the event of their arrest or surrender the Court below shall enlarge them on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chatra in connection with Complaint Case No. 798 of 2016, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

¶22

So far as prayer for prayer for anticipatory bail petitioner No.2, namely, Raghu Prajapati @ Radhu Prajapati is concerned, there is direct allegation, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory of petitioner No.2, namely, Raghu Prajapati @ Radhu Prajapati is hereby rejected.

¶23

(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)

¶24

Satayendra/

Savitri Devi And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savitri Devi And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramdeo Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gyan Prakash Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bharat Kumar Raut Alias Bharat Kr Raut Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ritesh Kumar Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Amit Kumar Bera Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Dilip Ray And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand