Allowed

Shanti Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC7 Jan 2019A.B.A./396/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased, in connection with an FIR under sections 304B/34 IPC lodged on suspicion based on a joint compromise filed prior to arrest.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties of the like amount upon arrest within four weeks.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 396 of 2018

¶2

Shanti Devi

¶3

Nandlal Singh … Petitioners Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

Surendra Singh … Opposite Parties

¶6

------

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶8

------ For the Petitioners : Mr. K.N. Sahay, Advocate Mr. S. Kumar, Advocate For the State : Addl. P.P.

¶9

------

¶10

Order No.08 Dated- 07.01.2019

¶11

Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Jamua P.S. Case No.154 of 2017 (G.R. No. 1843 of 2017) registered under sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. P.P. for the State.

¶13

Though notice was issued on behalf of opposite party no.2 yet, no one turns up on behalf of opposite party no.2

¶14

Perusal of the record reveals that vide order dated 26.02.2018, provisional bail was granted to the petitioners till 06.04.2018 and vide order dated 06.04.2018 the said order was modified to the extent that till 14.06.2018 no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners and vide order dated 14.06.2018, the said interim relief granted was ordered to continue till the case diary of the case was received and thereafter the impugned relief was extended from time to time.

¶15

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 is the mother-in-law and petitioner no.2 is father-in-law of the deceased. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. has been lodged on suspicion and after coming to know about the facts of the case, a joint compromise petition has been filed by the informant and the petitioners in the court below. Hence, it is

¶16

submitted that the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶17

Though the case diary has been called for, the same has not been produced.

¶18

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 admitted to anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of this order, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Giridih or its successor court, in connection with Jamua P.S. Case No.154 of 2017 (G.R. No. 1843 of 2017) subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.

¶19

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶20

Sonu/Gunjan-

Shanti Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanti 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

Ramesh Dubey Vs Raj Kumar Pathak And Ors.

Employees State Insurance Cor Vs M/S Kalyani Iron Foundary

Most.Sarita Devi And Anr. Vs National Insurance Co.Ltd.

Shiv Kumar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vijay Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Amin Vs the State of Jharkhand