Allowed

Naina Jhari Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Jul 2021A.B.A./4351/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This anticipatory bail application by petitioner Naina Jhari Devi, proprietor of Army Trading Company, was heard in view of allegations regarding death and injury caused during an explosion. The High Court of Jharkhand accepted the petitioner's undertaking to cooperate with the investigation and remove stamp defects, and granted anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. for a period of six we

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail for a period of six weeks on furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of like amount each, to appear when noticed by the Investigating Officer.

Naina Jhari Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4351 of 2021

¶2

Naina Jhari Devi … Petitioner Versus

¶3

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶4

------

¶5

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶6

For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Addl. P.P. ------

¶7

Order No.02 Dated- 15.07.2021

¶8

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects as pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown period is over.

¶10

In view of the personal undertaking of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.

¶11

Apprehending her arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Hazaribagh (Muffasil) P.S. Case No.45 of 2021 registered under sections 304/285 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

¶12

The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Army Trading company and while using kerosene oil procured from her company by the P.D.S. shop and supplied to the consumers explosion took place at the place of the consumer, due to which Dewanti Devi & Suman Kumari died and Ayush Kumar, Pawan sharma, Sabita Devi & Rajanti Devi got injured in the said explosion and the sample of the kerosene oil taken by the victims from the

¶13

concerned P.D.S. shops were sent to IOCL for test and in the test, it was found that the Flash Point of the sample was 13.5 degree centigrade whereas normal flash point is 35 degree centigrade which prima-facie shows that there was adulteration and irregularity in transportation of the kerosene oil, hence suspicion is raised that the petitioner might have adulterated the kerosene oil. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is then submitted that the flash point of the samples collected from the place of incident as well as from the agency of the petitioner were sent for testing to IOCL, Khuti Terminal Laboratory and the test report shows that flash point of sample collected from the place of incident was found to be 13.5 degree centigrade whereas the flash point of the sample collected from the filled drum of petitioner’s agency was found to be 50 degree centigrade and in this respect the learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court towards annexure-2 series which is the report submitted by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd to the District Supply Officer, Hazaribagh. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the adulteration that might have been done by the consumer or the PDS dealer. It is then submitted that the agency of the petitioner supplied kerosene oil to 38 PDS dealers on 13.01.2021 but the said unfortunate incidence took place in a particular area. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶14

Learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶15

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 petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of her arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of this order, she shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Hazaribagh, in connection with Hazaribagh (Muffasil) P.S. Case No.45 of 2021 with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before the Investigating Officer as

¶16

and when noticed by him and will furnish her mobile number and a copy of her Aadhar Card in the court below with the undertaking that she will not change her mobile number during the pendency of the case subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.

¶17

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶18

Sonu/Gunjan-

Naina Jhari Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naina Jhari 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

Uttam Singh Alias Uttam Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nitay Kumar Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ram Prasad Sao Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arun Agarwala Alias Arun Kumar Bakrewalla Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mukesh Turi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Praveen Kumar Upadhyay Vs the State of Jharkhand