Jharkhand High Court
Sajani Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand .... .... .... ... on 23 November, 2021
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.8611 of 2021
------
1. Sajani Devi
2. Vishal Kumar Gupta .... .... .... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Md. Ayub Ansari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, Addl.P.P
------
Order No.02 Dated- 23.11.2021
Heard the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks from the date of this order.
In view of personal undertaking given by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.
Apprehending their arrest in connection with Nimiyaghat P.S. Case No.52 of 2021 registered under Sections 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners respectively being the sister-in-law (Nanad) and brother-in-law (Devar) of the deceased- Gudia Devi, have committed the dowry death of the deceased. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner No.1 resides in her matrimonial home at Dhanbad which is too far away from the house of the deceased and the petitioner No.2 is the student of Inter and he is studying at Parshnath Inter College, Isri Bazar. It is then submitted that there is inordinate and unexplained delay of 28 days in lodging the F.I.R. It is also submitted that the deceased died in accidental fire due to leakage of gas in the kitchen. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that admittedly the deceased died within seven years of her marriage otherwise than under normal circumstances and there is specific allegation against them of treating the deceased with cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioners ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners and the requirement of their custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the privileges of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the above named petitioners is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Animesh/