Sima Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

2025:JHHC:20155

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.3774 of 2025

¶3

Sima Devi, aged about 42 years, wife of Ashwini Kumar Yadav.

¶4

Sunita Devi @ Sunita Kumari, aged about 37 years, W/o Ashok Kumar Yadav.

¶5

Pratima Mahato @ Kumari Pratima Mahato, aged about 40 years, wife of Arun Kumar Yadav. All R/o Village- Palbagan, P.O. + P.S.-Mihijam, DistrictJamtara.

¶6

… … Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand. … … Opposite Party

¶9

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶10

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ishhan Kashyap, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, A.P.P. Mr. Kaushal Kishor Mishra, Advocate

¶11

07/ 23.07.2025

¶12

Heard the parties.

¶13

2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 & 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been preferred by the petitioners apprehending their arrest for offences under Sections 302/34 of IPC.

¶14

3. It is alleged that the sister of the informant was murdered in her in-law’s house.

¶15

4. After going through the F.I.R, it is alleged that the husband of the informant used to drink and was having some illicit affairs. It is alleged that because of the behavior and attitude of the husband of the deceased, there was often quarrel amongst them. It has been alleged that on fateful day information was given to the informant that his sister was ill. The informant reached the house and found that her sister is dead. He alleged that it is the husband of the deceased i.e., Arvind Yadav along with his three brothers and their wives who have committed the murder.

¶16

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that there is no specific allegation against these three ladies who are none but the wives of the three brothers of Arvind Yadav. There is no specific allegation against them save and except a vague one that they are also involved in the occurrence. He

¶17

1

¶18

2025:JHHC:20155

¶19

submits that the husband i.e., Arvind Yadav was arrested and charge-sheet was filed against him. He was put on trial and in trial being S.T. Case No. 96/2024, all the independent witnesses have been declared hostile. He hands over the photocopy of the deposition. I find that out of seven witnesses, there are five independent who were declared hostile. Further, two of the witnesses who are related to the informant has stated nothing against these petitioners.

¶20

6. The informant opposes the prayer and submits that there is direct allegation against all the persons as it has been alleged that the sister of the informant was done to death by Arvind Yadav his three brothers and respective wives of the brother.

¶21

7. Learned APP also supports the aforesaid contention.

¶22

8. After hearing the parties, I find that these petitioners are wives of the three brothers. The main allegation is against the husband i.e., Arvind Yadav to the extent that there was dispute between the husband and the wife. The husband used to assault and torture the wife. It has only been alleged that these petitioners and the others are also responsible for committing murder of the deceased. Though, the death is by strangulation but the fact remains is that in the trial of Arvind Yadav, out of 7 independent witnesses, 5 witnesses have been declared hostile. PW-7 is a close relative of the deceased to whom the deceased was regularly complaining about the behavior of her in-laws, towards her.

¶23

After going through the aforesaid evidence, I find that there is no specific allegation against these three petitioners. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts and specially the evidence of S.T. Case No.96/2024, I am inclined to allow this application.

¶24

10. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands allowed . The petitioners, above named, are directed to surrender before the learned court below within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on the event of their surrender or arrest, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each, with two sureties of the

¶25

2

¶26

2025:JHHC:20155

¶27

like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Jamtara, in connection with Mihijam P.S. Case No.32/2024, subject to the condition that one of the bailers should be a close relative of the petitioners and other should be a resident of State of Jharkhand, having sufficient landed property in their name or in the name of their ancestors in which they are having share and to that effect, they have to file an affidavit before the Trial Court indicating their share in the property. The petitioners should cooperate with the investigation and appear before the I.O., in every fifteen days, till submission of the final report and will also cooperate in the trial.

¶28

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶29

Sandeep. Cp-3

¶30

3

Sima Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sima 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

Prem Chand Hemrom Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Waqar Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramjan Ali Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pradeep Kumar Alias Pradip Kumar Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Raju Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Department of Home Jail and Disaster Management

Prakash Kumar Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand