Gudiya Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

For the Petitioner : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate Ms. Aarti Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate Order No. 05 Dated: 12.09.2024

¶11

The petitioner apprehending her arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 323/341/506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 6 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 2001, has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶12

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint. The petitioner is the daughter-in-law of complainant/opposite party no. 2 and both are living within the same courtyard. Though the alleged occurrence took place on 16.04.2023 at about 6:00 p.m., however the complaint was instituted by the opposite party no. 2 on 27.04.2023 without giving cogent explanation for the said delay. Though it has also been alleged in the complaint that due to the assault made by the petitioner, the opposite party no. 2 sustained grievous injury, however no such injury report was attached with the complaint filed by the said opposite party. Moreover, all the alleged offences under the I.P.C. are bailable in nature except Section 6 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 2001. In fact, the alleged occurrence

¶13

took place due to a drainage which led to altercation between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2, however the petitioner never called the opposite party no. 2 “Daain” as has been alleged in the complaint. Hence, the petitioner may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶14

3. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 while opposing the petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail, submits that it would be evident from the complaint itself that the petitioner not only assaulted the opposite party no. 2 but also called her “Daain” undermining the relationship of daughter-in-law and mother-in-law between them. Hence, the petitioner may not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶15

4. Learned A.P.P. also opposes the petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶16

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials available on record, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

¶17

6. Accordingly, the petitioner, above named, in the event of her arrest or surrender before the court below within three weeks from today, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Dhanbad in connection with C.P. Case No. 4585 of 2023, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C.

¶18

Ritesh/

¶19

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶20

A.B.A. No. 4277 of 2024

¶21

2

Gudiya Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gudiya Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chhotelal Yadav Alias Jay Shankar Yadav Alias Chota Lal Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Karu Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kamlesh Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Faizan Khan Alias MD Faizan Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prem Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Wajid Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand