Phulwanti Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2025)

Phulwanti Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail granted to both petitioners: on arrest or surrender within six weeks from the date of the order, release on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Koderma, in connection with Complaint Case No.1031 of 2021, conditioned on cooperation with the trial and subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.1031 of 2021 (cognizance having been taken for offences punishable under Sections 323/420/506/34 IPC), are entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Court's answer

Considering the submissions of the counsels and the facts discussed, it is a fit case where the petitioners should be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Ratio / Principle

In the event of arrest or surrender within six weeks from the date of the order, the petitioners shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Koderma, in connection with Complaint Case No.1031 of 2021, conditioned on cooperation with the trial and subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ANTICIPATORY BAIL GRANTED — The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.; Order No.07 dated 13.01.2025) allowed A.B.A. No. 2613 of 2024 filed by Phulwanti Devi and Ruplal Yadav, apprehending arrest in Complaint Case No.1031 of 2021 (Koderma), wherein cognizance had been taken for offences punishable under Sections 323/420/506/34 IPC on the allegation, per counsel, that the petitioners took Rs.80,000/- from the complainant and did not return it. Holding it a fit case, the Court directed that, in the event of arrest or surrender within six weeks, the petitioners be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Koderma, conditioned on cooperation with the trial and subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Counsel for the petitioners had argued there was no document showing entrustment of money; these contentions were recorded but not adopted as findings.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2613 of 2024

Phulwanti Devi, wife of Ruplal Yadav, aged about 52 years,

Ruplal Yadav, Son of Late –Girdhari Mahto, aged about 57 years.

Both are resident of village –Ratithambhay, P.O. –Lokai, P.S. and District –Koderma.

… Petitioners

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

Kewal Das @ Kewal Ravidas, son of late Bhairo Das, resident of village –Baddiha, Jhanda Chowk, P.O. –Lokai, P.S. and District –Koderma. … Opposite Parties

------

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Petitioners : Mr. Diwakar Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.S. Sahay, Addl. P.P. ------

Order No.07 Dated- 13.01.2025

Heard the parties.

Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No.1031 of 2021 wherein cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under sections 323/420/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners have taken Rs.80,000/- from the complainant but are not returning the same. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and there is absolutely no document to show entrustment of money to the petitioners. It is then submitted that the petitioners have not taken any money and only to harass the petitioners, this false case has been foisted. It is then submitted that the petitioners undertake to cooperate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the above named petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of this order, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Koderma, in connection with Complaint Case No.1031 of 2021 with the condition that the petitioners will cooperate with the trial of the case subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

Sonu/Gunjan-