Single judge rejected bail for the accused husband while granting bail to his sister-in-law, finding insufficient evidence against her beyond suspicion of an affair.
Bail granted to Petitioner No. 2 on furnishing Rs. 10,000 bond with two sureties; Bail application of Petitioner No. 1 rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B. A. No. 6943 of 2020
1.Sajan Manjhi
2.Lalita Devi @ Lalia Devi … … Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
For the Petitioners : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P.
5/05.07.2021 Heard the parties.
Defects as pointed out by the office are ignored.
The report sent by the Registrar General of this court as per the order dated 28.09.2020 is perused and the same is accepted.
The petitioners are accused in connection with Hansdiha P.S. Case No. 137 of 2019 corresponding to G. R. No. 227 of 2020.
The marriage of the daughter of the informant was solemnized with the petitioner no. 1 in July 2019. It has been alleged that the daughter of the informant had gone to the house of her maternal uncle who on 07.11.2019 had left her at her matrimonial house. It is further alleged that on 11.11.2019, the petitioner no. 1 had come in search of his wife to her maternal uncle’s place and on 15.11.2019, the dead body of the daughter of the informant was recovered from a well.
Petitioner no. 1 is the husband of the deceased while the petitioner no. 2 is his sister-in-law. As per the post mortem report, the cause of death was opined to be throttling and several ante-mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased. So far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned, he was aware that his wife was staying in the house of her maternal uncle and in fact he had come in search of her as per the FIR. It has further been stated that he has been implicated on account of the suspicion of purported affair with the petitioner no. 2.
In the FIR, there is specific assertion that the uncle of the deceased had left her at her matrimonial house.
In view of the said fact, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner no. 1 and accordingly this bail application on his behalf is
-2-
rejected.
However, so far as petitioner no. 2 is concerned, save and except the purported suspicion of her having an affair with the petitioner no. 1, there is no reason for prosecuting the said petitioner.
In such view of the matter, therefore, petitioner no. 2 above named is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Dumka in connection with Hansdiha P.S. Case No. 137 of 2019 corresponding to G. R. No. 227 of 2020.
This application stands disposed of.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)
R. Shekhar Cp 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioners in a case involving the murder of an unmarried female.
Whether suspicion of an affair between the petitioners justifies implicating them in the crime.
Sajan Manjhi
Lalita Devi @ Lalia Devi
The State of Jharkhand
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court