Allowed

Humera Bibi v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC23 Aug 2024A.B.A./4219/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand granted anticipatory bail to two petitioners apprehending arrest under Sections 363 and 366A IPC. The court relieved them on bail upon surrender within three weeks, subject to furnishing a bond and complying with Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail upon surrender within three weeks; furnish Rs.20,000 surety bond with two similar sureties to S.D.J.M., Pakur, per Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Humera Bibi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4219 of 2024

¶2

Humera Bibi 2. Habir Sk. @ Habib Alam ... … Petitioners

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶5

----- For the petitioners : Mr. A. Allam, Sr. Advocate Mr. Faisal Allam, Advocate Ms. Sushmita Kumari, Advocate Mrs. Asfia Sultana, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Amrita Kumari, A.P.P.

¶6

-----

¶7

05/23.08.2024 The petitioners are apprehending their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 363/366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶8

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and have not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. The petitioner no. 1 is the mother of main accused Shahjamal Shekh whereas the petitioner no. 2 is his cousin. Even on perusal of the written report of the informant, it is evident that the allegation against the petitioners is of helping the main accused in taking away the victim girl (the informant’s daughter). Except that, there is no other allegation against the petitioners. They, however, undertake to co-operate in the ongoing investigation. Hence, they may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶9

3. Learned A.P.P while referring to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, submits that in the said statement, she has not stated anything about the petitioner no. 1. So far as the petitioner no. 2 is concerned, she has stated that he helped the main accused Shahjamal Shekh in taking away the

¶10

victim girl from her house to his ‘sasural’. Except that, she has not made any other allegation against him.

¶11

4. Learned counsel for the informant also opposes the

¶12

petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶13

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials available on record, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioners above named, in the event of their arrest/surrender within three weeks from today, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pakur, in connection with Pakur (M) P.S. Case No. 51/2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C.

¶14

Manish

¶15

¶16

A.B.A. No. 4219 of 2024

Humera Bibi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Humera Bibi 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

Fulchand Mahto Alias Phulchand Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Basudev Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kausar Alam Alias Kishor Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Suresh Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prem Shankar Singh Binjhiya Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shubham Tiwary Alias Shivam Tiwary Vs the State of Jharkhand