Maryam Nesha Vs the State of Jharkhand

This criminal appeal is directed against the order dated 22.02.2023 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 115 of 2023 by the Court of learned Special Judge (S.C. / S.T. Court), Sahibganj, in connection with S.C./S.T. Case No. 11 of 2023 arising out of Borio P.S. Case No. 320 of 2022, for the offence registered under Sections 302, 201, 120(B) & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C. / S.T. Act, whereby the regular bail petition filed by the appellant has been rejected and the case is presently pending in the Court of learned Special Judge (S.C. / S.T. Court), Sahibganj where trial of the case has commenced.

¶11

It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant is in jail since 19.12.2022 and she has been facing trial of this case which has commenced before the learned Trial Court i.e. the Special Judge (S.C. / S.T. Court) Sahibganj, vide S.C. / S.T. Case No. 11 of 2023.

¶12

It has further been submitted that during the course of trial 10 (ten) witnesses have been examined out of total 38 cited witnesses in the charge-sheet. Further it has also been pointed out that P.W.2, Surja Paharia, (father), P.W.-3, Shila Paharin (sister) and P.W.4, Chandi Paharin (mother) of the deceased Rebika Paharin have not supported the case of the prosecution and other witnesses also examined on behalf of the prosecution including P.W.-1, P.W.-5

¶13

(informant), P.W.-6, P.W.-7 and P.W.-8 have also not supported the case of the prosecution to implicate this appellant in the commission of the offence.

¶14

Further it has also been pointed out that the co-accused persons namely; Amir Hussain, Mahtab Ansari, Gulera Khatoon in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 220 of 2023 vide order dated 28th June, 2023 and Sareja Khatoon in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 440 of 2023 vide order dated 22.03.2024, have been enlarged on bail. There is no incriminating materials against this appellant other than her confessional statement and she is the mother of the co-accused Dildar Ansari and her case is on better footing than the co-accused person who have been granted bail by this Court and she has no other criminal antecedent. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that there is no eye witness of this case and only on the ground of criminal conspiracy this appellant has been made accused in this case.

¶15

Further it has also been pointed out that there is no specific allegation against the appellant and the only evidence is that the victim woman had solemnized the marriage with the co-accused Dildar Ansari (son of the appellant) who is the main culprit, if any, in this case and the appellant has no role to play in the commission of the offence and she is rotting in jail since 19.12.2022 and further, since the number of witnesses cited in the charge-sheet are very large i.e. 38 witnesses and therefore, it will take time for the conclusion of the trial and hence, this appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶16

On the other hand the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted that it is a very heinous crime where a tribal woman was married to co-accused Dildar Ansari (son of the appellant) and after getting married the co-accused Dildar Ansari i.e., husband of the deceased and his family members including this appellant were instigating the deceased who was aboriginal tribal

¶17

2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 431 of 2023

¶18

woman Rebika Paharin to convert her religion to their religion and when she resisted to adopt the religion of the appellant, she was killed in a brutal manner and the role of this appellant cannot be ruled out.

¶19

Further, it has been argued that the trial of this case has commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined namely; P.W.-2, Surja Paharia, (father), P.W.-3, Shila Paharin (sister) and P.W.-4, Chandi Paharin (mother) of the deceased Rebika Paharin and they have fully supported the case of the prosecution vide para-2 of P.W.-2, para-2 of P.W.-3 and Para-2 of P.W.-4 alongwith the other relevant paras in which the charge of murder against this appellant alongwith the co-accused persons cannot be ruled out at this stage of this case when several important witnesses are still remaining to be examined out of 38 charge-sheeted witnesses.

¶20

Further, it has been pointed out that ample incriminating materials have been found against this appellant in the commission of murder of a tribal woman namely; Rebika Paharin vide para Nos. 6, 7, 16, 25, 43, 44, 45, 223, 226, 201 and 78 of the case diary alongwith the post-mortem report, D.N.A. Test report of F.S.L. and seizure list where several incriminating articles are said to have been recovered and 18 parts of the body of the deceased, blood stained clothes etc. have been recovered and also the articles in possession of the co-accused persons including other things by which the involvement of the appellant is very strong at this stage of the case and further the confessional statement of the appellant and the co-accused persons vide para Nos. 34, 39, 46, 50, 54, 58, 69 and 72 of the case diary are also supporting the case of the prosecution.

¶21

Further, it has also been pointed out by the learned A.P.P. that the case of the co-accused persons namely; Amir Hussain, Mahtab Ansari, Gulera Khatoon and Sareja Khatoon who have been enlarged on bail by this Court in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 220 of 2023

¶22

3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 431 of 2023

¶23

and Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 440 of 2023 stands completely on different footing vis-a-vis the case of the appellant and therefore, this appellant does not deserve to be released on bail because the possibility of tampering the evidences are very imminent when more than 28 witnesses still remain to be examined.

¶24

Having heard the parties, perused the records of this case including the deposition of the witnesses who have been examined during the course of trial, case diary and other materials available on record.

¶25

In view of the forceful submissions advanced on behalf of the State, this Court is convinced that this appellant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail at this stage of the case since the deceased tribal woman has been killed by the co-accused persons including this appellant in a very brutal manner when the deceased did not succumb to the pressure of accused persons to adopt their religion. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of this appellant at this stage is rejected. Consequently, the criminal appeal is dismissed and the order dated 22.02.2023 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 115 of 2023 by the Court of learned Special Judge (S.C. / S.T. Court), Sahibganj is hereby upheld.

¶26

I.A. No. 6805 of 2023 seeking condonation of minor delay of 16 days stands disposed of by condoning the delay for the reasons stated in the said I.A. No. 6805 of 2023. .

¶27

The learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and try to dispose of this case as early as possible as per the provisions of law.

¶28

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

¶29

A.Mohanty

¶30

4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 431 of 2023

Maryam Nesha v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maryam Nesha 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

Dukhmochan Rao Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Nutan Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Mahto Alias Sanjay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manoj Kumar Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Panbabu Kewat Vs the State of Jharkhand

Saharabhanu Khatoon Alias Saharbano Khatoon Vs the State of Jharkhand