Dismissed¶26

Sugni Khatun Alias Sugani Khatun v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Jan 2025Cr.M.P./516/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cancellation of anticipatory bail; Section 439(2) CrPC; dismissed — no post-bail misconduct (similar offence, interference with investigation, tampering with evidence/witnesses, threatening witnesses, flight risk) alleged; thumb impression on compromise petition alleged to be under duress; IPC Sections 456/342/376; Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; single Judge (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.).

What did the court decide?

None; the prayer to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to opposite party No.2 was rejected. ¶26

Sugni Khatun Alias Sugani Khatun Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the prayer to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to opposite party No.2 was rejected.

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the anticipatory bail granted to opposite party No.2 by order dated 12.01.2022 in A.B.A. No.26 of 2022 should be cancelled under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶14

Court's answer

Grounds, illustrative though not exhaustive, for cancelling bail already granted include: indulging in similar criminal activity; interfering with the course of investigation; attempting to tamper with evidence or witnesses; threatening witnesses or indulging in similar activities hampering smooth investigation; likelihood of fleeing to another country; making themselves scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency; and attempting to place themselves beyond the reach of their surety.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

There is no allegation that opposite party No.2, after admission to bail, indulged in similar criminal activity, intended to interfere with the course of investigation, attempted to tamper with evidence, or committed any offence for which bail can be cancelled; hence this is not a fit case to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to him by order dated 12.01.2022 in A.B.A. No.26 of 2022.

¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, Cr.M.P. No.516 of 2024, decided 10-01-2025 (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.). Invoking Section 439(2) CrPC, the petitioner sought cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to opposite party No.2 by order dated 12.01.2022 in A.B.A. No.26 of 2022 (Thakurgangti P.S. Case No.45 of 2021; Sections 456/342/376 IPC), contending that her thumb impression on a joint compromise petition dated 16.09.2022 was affixed under threat and fear. Reciting the settled, illustrative grounds for cancellation of bail, the Court found no allegation that the accused, after admission to bail, indulged in similar criminal activity, interfered with the course of investigation, tampered with evidence, or committed any other disqualifying act, held it not a fit case for cancellation, and dismissed the petition.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.516 of 2024

¶2

Sugni Khatun @ Sugani Khatun, Aged about 32 years, Wife of Sheikh Bujruk, Resident of Village Malpratappur, P.O. Amdar, P.S. Thakurgangati, District- Godda.

¶3

… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Md. Zuber, Son of Sheikh Azim, Resident of Village Malpratappur, P.O. + P.S. Thakurgangati, District, Godda

¶7

… Opposite Parties

¶8

------

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶10

For the Petitioner For the State	------ : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate : Ms. Vandana Bharti, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2	: Mr. S. P. Roy, Advocate Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advocate

¶11

------

¶12

Order No:-06 Dated:-10-01-2025

¶13

Heard the parties.

¶14

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party No.2 in terms of the order dated 12.01.2022 passed in A.B.A. No.26 of 2022 in connection with Thakurgangti P.S. Case No.45 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 456/342/376 of the Indian Penal Code, now pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Godda.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the opposite party No.2 is that he committed rape upon the petitioner. It is submitted that the anticipatory bail was granted to the opposite party No.2 inter alia because the opposite party No.2 who was the petitioner in A.B.A. No.26 of 2022 filed the copy of the certified copy of the joint compromise petition filed by the parties in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Godda. It is next submitted that because of threatening to the petitioner due to fear, the petitioner put her thumb impression in the compromise petition dated 16.09.2022. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.

¶16

Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner to cancel the bail granted to the opposite party No.2 and submit that there is no allegation against the petitioner of tampering with the evidence or threatening any witnesses. It is next submitted that the contention of the petitioner is that she put her thumb impression under duress; is out and out false because not only the informant but also her advocate has also signed the petition filed by the petitioner and there is no material available in the record to suggest that the advocate was ever put under pressure by anybody. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be rejected.

¶17

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that the grounds illustratively though not exhaustively; for which bail granted to an accused can be cancelled, are as under:-

¶18

(i) by indulging in similar criminal activity,

¶19

(ii) interfering with the course of investigation,

¶20

(iii) attempted to tamper with evidence or witnesses,

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

It is pertinent to mention here that there is no allegation against the opposite party No.2 that the opposite party No.2 after being admitted to bail has either indulged in similar criminal activity or intention to interfere with the course of investigation or attempted to tamper with the evidence nor he has alleged to have committed any of the offence for which bail granted to an accused can be cancelled. Hence, this court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the bail granted to the opposite party No.2 in terms of the order dated 12.01.2022 passed in A.B.A. No.26 of 2022 in connection with Thakurgangti P.S. Case No.45 of 2021 be cancelled.

¶26

Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed.

¶27

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶28

Saroj/

Sugni Khatun Alias Sugani Khatun v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sugni Khatun Alias Sugani Khatun 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

Rajiv Ranjan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Daud Jahangir Vs State of Jharkhand

Binay Kumar Sinku Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nidhi Kumari Alias Kumari Nidhi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Madan Mohan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajesh Kumar Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand