Mamta Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jyoti Kumari, wife of Rajesh Singh, Daughter of Binod Rajak, Resident of village-Laliyobar, Jainagar Raod, Domchanch, P.O.-Domchanch Bazar, P.S.-Domchanch, District-Koderma

¶10

……Respondents

¶11

-----

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶13

----- For the Appellant : Mr. Diwakar Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, APP For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate

¶14

Order No.16/19^th August 2025

¶15

This criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant by challenging the order dated 18.06.2024 passed by Sri Ghulam Haidar, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Koderma, in ABP No.379 of 2024 arising out of Koderma (SC/ST) P.S. Case No.10/2024 by which the anticipatory bail application of the appellants has been rejected for the offences under Sections 498(A)/313/506/34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 3(1)(s)(z) of the SC/ST Act.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned APP as well as learned counsel for the Respondent No.2.

¶17

As per FIR, the appellants are mother-in-law and sister-oflaw of the Informant and alleged to have abused the Informant in the name of her caste. The Informant also alleged that her husband

¶18

¶19

2025:JHHC:24543

¶20

got her pregnancy aborted several times on the pressure of these appellants and other family members and fled away at the instance of these appellants. It is alleged that the appellants were demanding Rs.10 (Ten) Lakhs and she was not allowed to enter into the house as she belongs to Scheduled Caste.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal and not sustainable in eye of law. It is submitted that the appellants are innocent and committed no offence. It is submitted that the Informant i.e. Respondent No.2 has married with one Rajesh Kumar Singh, who is son of the appellant no.1 and brother-in-law of the appellant no.2. It is submitted that the Informant has not lodged the FIR against her husband and implicated the entire family members. The son of the appellant has performed Court Marriage with the Informant on 18.07.2022 and in support of the same with the photocopy of the certificate of marriage is attached as the part of the FIR. It is submitted that the allegation of demanding of Rs. Ten (10) lakhs and getting the pregnancy terminated at the instance of these appellants is not correct and hence they may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶22

On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer of appellant for anticipatory bail and submitted that the appellants had threatened and abused the Informant in the name of her caste. It is submitted that the Informant in her subsequent statement at paragraph-2 and other witnesses namely at paragraph-3, 12, 15 of the Case Diary have supported the allegation of the Informant and hence the prayer of anticipatory bail of the appellants may be rejected.

¶23

Learned counsel for the Informant, after adopting the

¶24

¶25

2025:JHHC:24543

¶26

submissions of learned APP, further submitted that these appellants are main culprits and they have ousted the Informant and not allowed to enter into her matrimonial home although she has performed the Court marriage with one Rajesh Kumar Singh who is the son of the appellant no.1 and brother-in-law of appellant no.2. It is submitted that the appellants have demanded Rs.10,00,000/- as a dowry for keeping her in the house as she has not been accepted in the family. It is submitted that the son of the Appellant No.1 has enticed the informant om the year 2020 and for which the father of the Informant has instituted Domchanch P.S. Case No.34 of 2020.

¶27

It is submitted that the Rajesh Kumar Singh got cunningly married with Informant and on the other hand, the appellants have sent her husband to some unknown place. It is submitted that even the appellants had pressurized her husband Rajesh Kumar Singh and on the pressure of her husband she aborted her pregnancy which is evident from the Medical Report dated 12.04.2023 which is enclosed as Annexure-A to the Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.2 dated 24.01.2025. it is submitted that the prima facie case is made out against the appellants and hence their prayer of anticipatory bail may be rejected.

¶28

Perused the Case Diary and considered the submission of both the sides.

¶29

It appears from the FIR that the Informant has lodged the same against the appellant and other family members. However, the husband of the Informant has not been implicated as an accused in the FIR.

¶30

It also appears that the Informant is said to have aborted her pregnancy on the pressure of her husband.

¶31

¶32

2025:JHHC:24543

¶33

It also reveals that the appellant no.1 and appellant no.2 are mother and sister-in-law of the Rajesh Kumar Singh, with who the Informant has performed marriage.

¶34

It further reveals that prior to lodging the FIR the appellants had sent the letter to Senior Superintendent of Police, Koderma stating therein that the Informant has been demanding Rs.10,00,000/- and half share in the family property of the appellant and on failure to do so, she would implicated them.

¶35

It appears that the appellant no.1 and appellant no.2 are mother and sister-in-law of the Informant. 14. Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the appellants namely Mamta Devi @ Mamta Singh and Asha Devi, are directed to surrender before the learned Court below within six weeks and in the event of their arrest or surrender, the appellant is directed to be released on bail, on their furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of Sri Ghulam Haidar, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Koderma, in ABP No.379 of 2024 arising out of Koderma (SC/ST) P.S. Case No.10/2024.

¶36

Thus, the impugned order dated 18.06.2024 passed by Sri Gulam Haidar, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Koderma, in ABP No.379 of 2024 arising out of Koderma (SC/ST) P.S. Case No.10/2024 is set aside

¶37

Thus, this Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.432 of 2024 is allowed and stands disposed of.

¶38

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

¶39

Nishant/-

¶40

Mamta Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamta 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

Manoj Kumar Jaiswal Alias Manoj Jaiswal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Naresh Yadav Alias Naresh Prasad Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prakash Rai And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Sandeep Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sagar Singh Choudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Nazam Vs the State of Jharkhand