Allowed

Chinta Devi Alias Bacho Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC23 Aug 2022B.A./5755/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge order allowing bail to a female accused in a murder case who lacked specific overt allegations against her, directing release on sureties with standard trial attendance conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release of petitioner on bail featuring Rs.25,000 bond with two sureties of like amount, conditioned upon physical appearance at each trial date and non-interference with witnesses.

Chinta Devi Alias Bacho Devi Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.5755 of 2022

¶2

Chinta Devi @ Bacho Devi … Petitioner Versus

¶3

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶4

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶5

For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Zaid Ahmed, Adv. For the State : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, Addl. P.P.

¶6

Order No.07 Dated- 23.08.2022

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶8

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with S.T. No.487 of 2018 arising out of Dhansar P.S. Case No. 166 of 2018 (G.R. No.2967 of 2018) registered under sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶9

As per F.I.R., the allegation is that on 31.07.2018 at about 2:00 am, the informant heard hullah then he came out from his house and ran towards the place of occurrence and saw that Subhash Bhuiya, Sajan Bhuiya, Angal Bhuiya, Chinta Devi (present petitioner) armed with bhujali and sharp cutting weapons were assaulting his younger brother Rahul Kumar Bhuiya. It is further alleged that the informant tried to rescue his younger brother but he was assaulted by petitioner and other co-accused persons and saw that Chinta Devi(present petitioner) and Angal Bhuiya caught hold of hands of his younger brother and other co-accused persons inflicted bhujali blow and big stone blow on his neck and head respectively and murdered him.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all as alleged in F.I.R. It is further submitted that no overt act has been attributed against the petitioner and there is no concrete materials collected against the petitioner showing her involvement in the alleged offence of murder. Petitioner is a woman and the main allegation of inflicting bhujali and big stone injuries upon the deceased is against the co-accused Subhash Bhuiya and Sajan Bhuiya. Charge has been framed against the petitioner. Petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the trial of the case and remain physically present on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial and shall not indulge in tampering with the prosecution evidence or influence the witnesses or informant. It is next submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. The petitioner is

¶11

languishing in judicial custody since 01.08.2018 without any rhymes and reasons. Hence the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Learned Addl. P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that there are sufficient materials against petitioner showing her involvement it the alleged offence of murder. Hence, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of allegation against petitioner coupled with materials available on record and period of custody of the petitioner, I am inclined to release the above named petitioner, on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner named above, is directed to 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 Addl. Sessions Judge-III, Dhanbad in connection with S.T. No.487 of 2018 arising out of Dhansar P.S. Case No. 166 of 2018 (G.R. No.2967 of 2018) with condition that petitioner shall appear physically on each and every date during the trial of case till its conclusion unless his physical appearance is dispensed with for sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the learned trial

¶14

court and with further condition that petitioner shall not indulge in tampering with the prosecution evidence or influence the witnesses or informant.

¶15

In case of violation of the aforesaid conditions of the bail, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of petitioner and take into custody of the petitioner for the purpose of trial.

¶16

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶17

Pappu/

Chinta Devi Alias Bacho Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chinta Devi Alias Bacho 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohit Kumar Alias Rohit Harijan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Deepak Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Ekram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Boby Sundi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vivek Kumar Jaiswal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ishwar Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand