The Ranchi High Court rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail filed by two petitioners accused of the murder (alleged suicide) of their deceased brother-in-law. The court held that custodial interrogation was essential due to the gravity of the offence and the initial stage of investigation.
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 A.B.A. No.3642 of 2022
------
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -----For the Petitioners : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Md. Hatim, Addl.P.P ------
Order No.05 Dated- 03.08.2022
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Apprehending their arrest in connection with Manika P.S. Case No. 101 of 2021 instituted under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.
As per FIR, the allegation is that informant’s brother namely Devdeep Singh (since deceased) was married with petitioner no.1 about 5 years ago and since then the deceased was residing at his Sasural and they were living a happy conjugal life. It is further alleged that after some years, petitioner no.1 entangled with petitioner no.2 having illicit relationship due to that reason, some quarrels occurred between petitioner no.1 and her husband. It is further alleged that on 06.10.2021 at about 2:00 pm, the informant was informed that his brother has died due to hanging in his in-laws’ house. The informant suspects against petitioners in causing murder of his brother.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence at all rather they have been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of suspicion. It is further alleged that there is no illicit relationship between petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2. Petitioners have no criminal antecedent. In case of their arrest at the hands of police, petitioners shall sustain irreparable loss. It is next submitted that there is no specific overt act attributed to the petitioners which could have led to commission of suicide by the deceased. It is further submitted that petitioners undertake to co-operate with the investigation of the case and will not indulge in tampering with prosecution evidence and will abide by all terms and conditions imposed by this Court in the matter of granting
anticipatory bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that there is specific and direct allegation against petitioners that due to illicit relationship between petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 frequent scuffle was going on between petitioner no.1 and her husband(since deceased) and consequently her husband committed suicide. It is then submitted that the post-mortem report of the deceased has also corroborated the case of prosecution. Hence, petitioners may not be extended privilege of anticipatory bail.
From perusal of record, it appears that the deceased and petitioner no.1 were residing together in the same house but no information was given by petitioner no.1 about unnatural death of her husband to any relatives of the deceased or before any competent authority. The witnesses, interrogated during the investigation, have stated about strained relationship between the deceased and petitioner no.1 due to illegal relationship between petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2. In the post-mortem report of the deceased ligature mark found and hyoid bone fractured. Investigation of this case is at initial stage, hence, custodial interrogation of petitioners is required for further investigation of this case.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of allegation against petitioners and gravity of offence and severity of punishment, coupled with materials available on record, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the above named petitioners is rejected.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Pappu/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioners facing murder charges arising from the suicide of Devdeep Singh.
Whether custodial interrogation is required given the gravity of the allegation and initial stage of investigation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner No.1
Petitioner No.2
The State
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
