Pushpa Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 January, 2017

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Pushpa Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 January, 2017

Bench: Anant Bijay Singh

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
                        A.B.A No. 4418 of 2016
     Pushpa Devi                                           Petitioner.
                               Versus
     State of Jharkhand                                   Opp. Parties.
                                    ------

    CORAM:     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH
                          -----
     For the Petitioner :    Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Sr. Advocate
     For the State      :    A.P.P.
                          -----
04/Dated: 25.01.2017
            Heard learned counsel for the parties.
            The   petitioner   is    apprehending   his    arrest   in    connection   with
    Chhatarpur P.S. Case no. 189/2014 corresponding to G.R. No. 2251/2014,
    registered under sections 341,161,409,420 of the I.P.C. and section 30 of the
    Panchayati Raj Act.
            It appears that earlier the petitioner has filed A.B.A. No. 2321 of 2015,
    which was rejected by a Bench of this court vide order dated 20.08.2015 and
    thereafter, second anticipatory bail application being A.B.A. No. 3782 of 2015
    was filed, which was also rejected by a Bench of this Court vide order dated
    09.10.2015

and one Cr. M.P. No. 692 of 2016 was also filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding, thereafter the present anticipatory bail application has been filed.

Query has been made from learned counsel for the petitioner that on what ground third anticipatory bail application is maintainable. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that similarly situated co- accused namely, Ramesh Kumar Singh has been granted anticipatory bail by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.08.2015 in A.B.A. No. 2627 of 2015.

Under order dated 16.11.2016, the case records of A.B.A. No. 2627 of 2015 was called for and the case was adjourned to 12.01.2017. Since, on that date, this Bench was not available, this case was adjourned to 25.01.2017.

From perusal of the records of ABA No. 2627 of 2015, it appears that although list of lady candidates for getting government assistance was prepared by the present petitioner ( Pushpa Devi), Ramesh Kumar Singh (petitioner in ABA No. 2627 of 2015) and Kamlesh Ram (husband of Pushpa Devi, who is petitioner no. 2 in ABA No.2321 of 2015), but Ramesh Kumar Singh (petitioner in ABA No. 2627 of 2015) Panchayat Sewak, has filed a complaint before the BDO, Chhatarpur against the Mukhiya ( Pushpa Devi) alleging therein that she is wholly responsible for the whole episode. On that ground, Ramesh Kumar Singh was granted anticipatory bail by a Bench of this Court. Similarly, Kamlesh Ram, who is petitioner no.2 in ABA No. 2321 of 2015, has been granted anticipatory bail on the ground that he has been made accused only because he is husband of Pushpa Devi, the present petitioner.

Today, when the case is called out, learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly submitted that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner- Pushpa Devi being the Mukhiya, with the help of other Panchayat Sewaks, has recommended the names of some widow ladies for grant of pension, who were not actually widows and were below the age of 60 years, but no money was disbursed to any of the such candidates, whose names have been recommended by the petitioner- Pushpa Devi. Hence, being a lady, she may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail application of the petitioner and submitted that petitioner being the Mukhiya is wholly responsible for the whole episode. Referring to various paragraphs of the counter-affidavit, learned A.P.P. has submitted that witnesses have fully supported the case of prosecution.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to admit the petitioner on anticipatory bail, subject to the condition that petitioner shall deposit Rs. 21,000/- (Rs. Twenty-one thousand) in the Welfare Fund Account of Jharkhand Bar Council Lawyers Academy for Continuing Legal Education Trust and Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand) in the Welfare Fund Account of Advocates Welfare Fund Trustee Committee (Total amount of Rs. 41,000/-) as cost within Four Weeks from the date of this order and file the receipt in the court below. Thereafter, the above named petitioner is directed to surrender in the court below within Six Weeks from the date of this order and in the event of her arrest or surrender, the court below shall enlarge her on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand ) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Chhatarpur P. S. Case no. 189/2014 corresponding to G.R. No. 2251/2014, subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Cr. P.C. and subject to the further condition that.

Let a copy of order be communicated to the court below and also to the Welfare Fund Account of Jharkhand Bar Council Lawyers Academy for Continuing Legal Education Trust and also to the Advocates Welfare Fund Trustee Committee of Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi.

( Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Raman/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court