Jharkhand High Court
Fuliya Devi @ Phaliya Devi Aged About 48 ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 October, 2024
THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 516 of 2024
-----
Fuliya Devi @ Phaliya Devi aged about 48 years, wife of Shivraj Yadav @ Bhola Yadav, resident of Village - Tilhat, P.O. & P. S. - Hunterganj, District Chatra ... ... ... Petitioner With A.B.A. No. 580 of 2024
-----
Shila Devi aged about 32 years wife of Guddu Yadav, resident of Village - Tilhat, P.O. & P.S. - Hunterganj, District - Chatra ... ... ... Petitioner With A.B.A. No. 586 of 2024
-----
Saroj Devi @ Saroja Devi aged about 36 years wife of Ganeshi Yadav, resident of Village - Manasi, P.O. & P.S. - Dobhi, District - Gaya (Bihar) ... ... ... Petitioner With A.B.A. No. 662 of 2024
-----
Gangiya Devi aged about 78 years wife of Haru Yadav, resident of Village - Tilhat, P.O. & P.S. - Hunterganj, District - Chatra ... ... ... Petitioner With A.B.A. No. 1776 of 2024
-----
Guddu Yadav aged about 33 years son of Haru Yadav, resident of Village - Tilhat, P.O. & P.S. - Hunterganj, District - Chatra ... ... ... Petitioner With A.B.A. No. 1817 of 2024
-----
Mahendra Yadav aged about 38 years son of Ganesh Yadav, resident of Village - Tilhat, P.O. & P.S. - Hunterganj, District - Chatra ... ... ... Petitioner With A.B.A. No. 1818 of 2024
-----
Daroga Yadav aged about 40 years son of Haru Yadav, resident of Village - Tilhat, P.O. & P.S. - Hunterganj, District - Chatra ... ... ... Petitioner With A.B.A. No. 1836 of 2024
-----
Bhola Yadav @ Shivraj Yadav aged about 55 years son of Late Preman Yadav, resident of Village - Tilhat, P.O. & P.S. - Hunterganj, District - Chatra ... ... ... Petitioner With A.B.A. No. 1846 of 2024 1
-----
Arbind Yadav @ Arvind Yadav aged about 35 years son of Rahdev Yadav @ Rajdev Yadav, resident of Village - Tilhat, P.O. & P.S. - Hunterganj, District -
Chatra
... ... ... Petitioner
With
A.B.A. No. 1847 of 2024
-----
Balram Kumar Yadav @ Balram Yadav @ Lallu Yadav aged about 27 years son of Krishna Yadav, resident of Village - Tilhat, P.O. & P.S. - Hunterganj, District - Chatra ... ... ... Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Jharkhand
2. Subita Devi wife of Daroga Yadav, present resident of Village - Nauwadih, P.O. Dobhi, P. S. - Dobhi, Dist. - Gaya (Bihar) ... ... Opp. Parties (In all the anticipatory bail applications)
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajiv N. Prasad, Advocate For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Ramchander Sahu, Advocate (In A.B.A. No. 6163 of 2024) For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, A.P.P. : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, A.P.P. : Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, A.P.P. : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. : Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, A.P.P. : Mr. Sanat Kumar Jha, A.P.P. : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P. : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P. : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, A.P.P.
------
Order No. 11/Dated 23rd October, 2024
1. As above all anticipatory bail applications arising out of the same FIR, therefore, these are being heard together and are being decided by this common order.
2. Apprehending their arrest in connection with Hunterganj P.S. Case No. 60 of 2020, corresponding to POCSO Case No. 54 of 2021, instituted under Sections 302/376/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/ 4 of the POCSO Act, the petitioners have moved to this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.
3. Heard Mr. Rajiv N. Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in all the anticipatory bail applications, learned A.P.P.s 2 appearing on behalf of the State as well as Mr. Ramchander Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.
4. Submission has been made on behalf of all the petitioner in above said anticipatory bail applications that it is a glaring example of false implication by the hand of wife of petitioner- Daroga Yadav (in A.B.A. No. 1818 of 2024) who on earlier occasion also lodged a case against him and other family members but could not succeed and take this opportunity of mis-happening with her daughter (since deceased) to encash in her favour by fabricating a false story that the deceased daughter conveyed her at CWC, Chatra regarding commission of rape by her own uncle (petitioner in Guddu Yadav in A.B.A. No. 1776 of 2024).
5. It has been pointed out that except the informant and her married daughter, there are number of witnesses whose statement has been recorded during course of investigation but they have not imputed any allegation on any of the petitioners of above said anticipatory bail applications.
6. It has also been brought to notice of this Curt by pointing out the statement of deceased at CWC, Chatra that had she ravished by her uncle (petitioner Guddu Yadav in A.B.A. No. 1776 of 2024) then, why she did not divulge this fact at the time of recording of her statement.
7. Lastly, it is also urged before this Court that story of burning of daughter of informant by the accused persons, who had herself (deceased) stated before CWC, Chatra that she wanted to live with her father, grand- father and other family members cannot and should not be believable at all. Upon, aforesaid premise, the prayer of anticipatory bail has been made.
8. Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State pointed out the fact that, in the present case final form has been filed after investigation but concerned court took cognizance of offence and proceeded against the accused persons.
39. Learned Spl.P.P. further pointed out the order of taking cognizance dated 14.09.2021 and submitted that it is very speaking order and reasons assigned by the concerned court for taking cognizance clearly shows the culpability of Guddu Yadav (uncle of deceased) who was in habit of making physical relation with deceased and also allegation against father and other petitioners that they burnt her so that deceased could not be able to allege rape against her uncle.
10. It has also been pointed out that informant's married daughter was also present at the in-laws house of informant who has clearly stated that before burning deceased, she and her brother was locked in a room and anyhow she managed to escape from there and communicated the incident of burning by the hand of accused persons to the informant.
11. After perusal of the record it transpires that informant is the mother of deceased and it is alleged that two years prior to incident she left her matrimonial home with two daughters and started residing with two daughters and one daughter got married and one son and daughter were kept by her husband and she moved before CWC, Chatra for her custody where her daughter (since deceased) conveyed her that her uncle, Petitioner-Guddu Yadav, used to commit rape on her person then she asked for the custody of her daughter after medical examination but accused persons took her daughter and killed her by burning and they hatched a conspiracy to give it a colour of accidental burning while she was preparing meal on a gas stove.
12. Original case diary is available on record and after perusing the same it appears that statement of victim recorded at CWC, Chatra is also available wherein deceased has not uttered a word regarding commission of rape by the hand of her uncle Guddu Yadav. Elder married daughter of the informant claimed herself to be present at the in-laws house of informant but this fact has not been corroborated from the mouth of number of other witnesses including the son of the informant who was/is staying with his father. The son of the informant who was/is residing along with deceased in their father's house has stated that cloths of deceased caught fire and he shouted and his father, uncle and other family 4 members rushed there and thereafter the deceased was taken to hospital and other witnesses also stated that immediately after the burning of deceased she was taken to hospital where she succumbed to burn injury on the same day.
13. This has also come in the case diary that informant lodged a case in the year 2018 as Hunterganj P. S. Case No. 1328 of 2018 dated 05.11.2018 under Sections 341/323/307/498A/34 of I.P.C. against her husband and other in-laws but final form has been filed on 16.09.2019 in that case. On behalf of defence, it is contended strongly that as the informant left her matrimonial home and started residing with a man (Driver) and this fact has come from the mouth of witnesses who examined by I.O. during course of investigation.
14. Plea on behalf of petitioners of false implication by the hand of informant has been taken. Of course, this plea of accused persons has to be decided after trial, as concerned court has proceeded by taking cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused person.
But in view of above stated fact, this Court finds it is fit case for grant of anticipatory bail, accordingly, the petitioners, above named, are directed to surrender in the court within four weeks from today and in the event of their arrest or surrender, they will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Chatra in connection with Hunterganj P.S. Case No. 60 of 2020, corresponding to POCSO Case No. 54 of 2021, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
15. Original case diary is available on record. Therefore, office is directed to send the original case diary immediately to court concede for needful.
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Umesh/-
5