Sarwari Khatoon Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B.A. No.898 of 2024

¶3

Sarwari Khatoon … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶4

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶5

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Verma, Adv. For the State : Mr. Vijoy Kumar Sinha, Addl. P.P.

¶6

Order No.06/Dated- 24.06.2024

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶8

The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with Katkamsandi P.S Case No. 395 of 2023 (S.T. Case No. 45 of 2024) registered for the offences under Sections 201 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned Principal District & Sessions Judge-1, Hazaribag.

¶9

As per FIR, the case was registered based on a handwritten report by Mo. Wajid Ansari, who stated that his 5 years’ old son, Faizal Ansari, went missing after going to school with his stepmother (the petitioner) on 13.09.2023. When Faizal did not return home, his parents and villagers searched for him and found his body in a well, with a rope tied with two bricks around his neck. Upon questioning, petitioner confessed for tying the rope and bricks around Faizal’s neck and pushing him into the well.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case only on the basis of suspicion. It is further submitted that dead body of the deceased child was already recovered from the well, as per statement of one F.I.R. witness specifically stating that the child has been drowned in the well tied with two bricks by the petitioner. On the basis of extrajudicial confession of the petitioner before the informant which is revealed in the F.I.R. itself that on strict interrogation with the petitioner, she disclosed that she has thrown the child into the well, thereafter, dead body was already recovered in the morning at about 08:15 a.m. on 14.09.2023 and jute rope about one and a

¶11

half meter tied with a piece of brick was seized. It is submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 14.09.2023 in the morning at about 08:30 a.m., therefore, story of any confessional statement leading to recovery is absolutely false, there was no antemortem or post mortem injury was found on the dead body although a small kid of five years was killed and the cause of death due to Asphyxia due to drowning. Petitioner has no criminal background and no complaint of any kind about any enmity was lodged against the petitioner by the informant prior to this occurrence petitioner is languishing in Judicial Custody since 14.09.2023 without any rhymes and reasons. Charge-sheet has been submitted. Petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the trial of the case by remaining physically present as and when required and shall not indulge in any manner in tampering with the prosecution evidences or influencing the witnesses of prosecution. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of bail.

¶12

On the other hand, learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that there are sufficient positive circumstantial evidence against the petitioner along with his confessional statement showing to the present case which pertains to murder of a child. Hence, petitioner does not deserve bail.

¶13

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation coupled with the materials available against the petitioner, I am inclined to release the petitioner on regular bail. Accordingly, the petitioner named above is directed to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Principal District & Sessions Judge-1, Hazaribag in connection with Katkamsandi P.S Case No. 395 of 2023 (S.T. Case No. 45 of 2024) subject to the conditions:-

¶14

(1) Petitioner shall remain physically present on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial of this case unless prevented from sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.

¶15

(2) Petitioner shall not indulge in any or other similar offence till the conclusion of the trial.

¶16

(3) Petitioner shall not indulge in tampering with the prosecution evidences or influencing the prosecution witnesses.

¶17

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶18

Sachin

Sarwari Khatoon v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarwari Khatoon 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

Bhuneshwar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shankar Ram Alais Sonu Alias Sonu Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chandan Singh Alias Chandan Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lakhendra Thakur Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Ritesh Kumar Tiwary Alias Nikhil Alias Ritesh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sandeep Kumar Gupta and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand