In an anticipatory bail matter, the High Court of Jharkhand rejected the petitioner's prayers due to serious murder charges and the necessity for custodial interrogation.
Prayer for anticipatory bail was 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
A.B. A. No. 636 of 2022
Pratima Kumari @ Pratima Devi … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar ,Adv. For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra ,Addl. P.P.
02 / 14.02.2022 Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within two weeks after resumption of the court in physical mode.
In view of the personal undertaking given by learned counsel for the petitioner the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter are ignored for the present.
Apprehending her arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Tamar P.S. Case No. 03 of 2021 registered under Sections 328, 379, 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed murder of the deceased- Monit Kumar Mahto, the younger brother of her husband, by mixing poison in his food as she was having marital discord with her husband and other family members of her husband. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and suspicion has been raised regarding involvement of the petitioner in this case and there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. It is further submitted that the victim is a victim of conspiracy and she had instituted a complaint against her husband in Mahila Police Station, Bundu prior to the occurrence. It is next submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-
operate with the investigation of the case hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
The learned Addl. PP vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of committing murder of the deceased, hence, in view of serious allegation against the petitioner, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during investigation of the case for finding out the source of the poison and recovery of the remaining poison, if any and the post mortem report also confirms the administration of poison to the deceased hence, the petitioner ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the serious allegations against the petitioner and the requirement of her custodial interrogation during investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case, where the privilege of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.
( ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
Smita/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in the murder case.
Whether custodial interrogation is required for investigation of poison administration.
Pratima Kumari @ Pratima Devi
The State of Jharkhand
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
