Tanuja Khatun Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 594 of 2023

¶3

Tanuja Khatun … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Anr. … Opposite Parties

¶4

------

¶5

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶6

For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, Addl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Ms. Shruti Shrestha, Advocate : Mr. Ajit Kr. Singh, Advocate ------

¶7

Order No.11 Dated- 05.01.2024

¶8

Heard the parties.

¶9

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under section 439 (2) Cr.P.C by the petitioner with a prayer to cancel the bail granted to the opposite party no.2 in terms of the order dated 27.07.2021, passed in A.B.A. No. 4616 of 2021 in connection with Putki P.S. Case No. 180 of 2020.

¶10

The brief facts of the case is that the opposite party no.2 herein was given the privilege of anticipatory bail vide order dated 27.07.2021, passed in A.B.A. No. 4616 of 2021 inter alia with the condition that the opposite party no.2 of this criminal miscellaneous petition who was the petitioner of A.B.A. No. 4616 of 2021 shall not make any posting in any social media during the pendency of the case.

¶11

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party no.2 has violated the said condition of the bail imposed by this Court since he is publishing the photograph of the victim in the social media and is disturbing her mentally and tarnishing her image and is also threatening the petitioner to dissuade her from disclosing the facts to the court or police concerned. It is further submitted that the petitioner has lodged Putki P.S. Case No. 89 of 2022 for the fresh offence. It is then submitted that the opposite party no.2 after getting anticipatory bail from this Court has become emboldened and is violating the said order. Hence, it is submitted that the bail granted to the opposite party no.2 be cancelled.

¶12

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 drawing attention of this Court to Annexure-B of the counter affidavit particularly to page no.11-12 submits that the husband of the alleged victim girl namely

¶13

Tanisha who is the son-in-law of the petitioner of this criminal miscellaneous petition was demanding extortion of Rs.2,00,000/- per year to save the opposite party no.2 from filing multiple FIR against him in the State of Jharkhand as well as in the State of West Bengal and as the opposite party no.2 did not agree to pay the amount, hence, a second FIR vide Putki P.S. Case No. 89 of 2022 has been foisted containing false allegations only to force the opposite party no.2 to pay extorted amount of Rs.2,00,000/- per year and this criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed with a prayer to cancel the bail granted to the opposite party no.2 is also a part of the said strategy to realize the extortion amount from the opposite party no.2. It is further submitted that the opposite party no.2 never published or transmitted any obscene material of the petitioner’s daughter and the entire document annexed with the application is false and fabricated one which has been created for the purpose of extorting money from the opposite party no.2. It is further submitted that it is a settled principle of law that bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it, no longer conducive to a fair trial. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

¶14

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that only condition imposed upon the petitioner at the time of granting him bail, is that he will not make any posting in any social media. After going through the materials in the record, this Court do not find any averment in the petition as to in which social media any posting has been made by the petitioner either in his name or in the name of somebody else. No copy of the screen shot of any publication made by the opposite party no.2 in any social media has been annexed. It is a settled principle of law that the following are the grounds illustratively though not exhaustively; where bail granted to an accused can be cancelled:-

¶15

(i) by indulging in similar criminal activity,

¶16

(ii) interfering with the course of investigation,

¶17

(iii) attempted to tamper with evidence or witnesses,

¶18

(iv) threaten witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation,

¶19

(v) there is likelihood of their fleeing to another country,

¶20

(vi) attempted to make themselves scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency,

¶21

(vii) attempted to place themselves beyond the reach of his surety, etc. order.

¶22

But perusal of the record reveals that none of the allegations has been made against the petitioner.

¶23

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the materials in the record is inadequate to establish that the opposite party no.2 has violated the condition of bail and in the absence of the same, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer of the petitioner to cancel the bail granted to the opposite party no.2 in terms of the order dated 27.07.2021, passed in A.B.A. No. 4616 of 2021 in connection with Putki P.S. Case No. 180 of 2020 passed by the learned trial court.

¶24

Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.

¶25

AFR-Sonu-Gunjan/

Tanuja Khatun v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tanuja Khatun v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Kumar Bhushan Vs Employers in Rel.to Management of Bank of India

Tata Motors Limited through Its General Manager Legal Services Sri Rajesh Kumar Das Vs D K Singh

Laxmi Narayan Kejriwal And Ors. Vs Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Pradeep Mahto Alias Pradeep Kumar Mahto Alias Chhabi Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Taiba Khatoon Alias Taiyba Khatoon Alias Taiva Khatoon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shiv Shankar Prajapati Alias Sheo Shanker Prajapati Vs the State of Jharkhand