Allowed

Sarita Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC26 Aug 2019A.B.A./3699/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a case involving allegations of dowry death, the High Court of Jharkhand granted anticipatory bail to petitioners who were falsely implicated. The court imposed conditions requiring cooperation with the investigation, appearance before the investigating officer, and furnishing personal details.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, conditioned on surrender or arrest within four weeks upon furnishing a bail bond and sureties, and cooperating with the investigation.

Sarita Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B.A. No. 3699 of 2019

¶3

1. Sarita Devi

¶4

Amrendra Kumar Singh @ Amrendra Kumar Sinha

¶5

… Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

… The State of Jharkhand Opposite Party

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶9

------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. R.P. Singh, Addl. P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Avishek Prasad, Advocate

¶10

------

¶11

Order No.07 Dated- 26.08.2019

¶12

Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Kanke P.S. Case No.50 of 2019 registered under sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

Heard the parties.

¶14

The Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 is the mother-in-law and the petitioner no.2 is the father-in-law of the deceased-Puja Prakash. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegation against the petitioners is that they caused dowry death of the deceased. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations against the petitioners are false. Drawing attention of this Court to page no. 23-24 of the brief which is the fardbeyan of the informant on the basis of which UD case no. 12 of 2019 was registered, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the said report, the informant has not whispered anything about the petitioners. It is then submitted that similarly in the online F.I.R. lodged by the wife of the informant nothing has been alleged against the petitioners and as an afterthought, the petitioners have been implicated in this case only to harass them. It is next submitted that there is no overt act alleged against the petitioners and the petitioners undertakes to cooperate with the investigation

¶15

of the case. It is lastly submitted that the co-accused persons have been given the privilege of anticipatory bail by this court vide order dated 10.07.2019, passed in A.B.A. No. 3554 of 2019. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶16

Learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶17

Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the above named petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of this order, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Ranchi, in connection with Kanke P.S. Case No.50 of 2019 with the condition that the petitioners will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will furnish their mobile numbers and a copy of their Aadhar Cards in the court below with the undertaking that they will not change their mobile numbers during the pendency of the case subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.

¶18

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶19

Sonu-

Sarita Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarita Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Sanjay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Avinash Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Banti Lohar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashok Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunil Dhobi Alias Sunil Rajak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Parwez Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand