Muniya Devi And Ors vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 April, 2016

[Cites 6, Cited by 1]

Jharkhand High Court

Muniya Devi And Ors vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 April, 2016

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         A. B. A. No. 4591 of 2015
                                       ---
            1. Muniya Devi W/o Anup Modi alias Anup Sao
            2. Lilawati Devi W/o late Kunarik Modification
            3. Karuwa Modi S/o late Munarik Modi, all resident of Tapin North,
               Block No. 38, P.O. Tapin, P.S. Charhi, District Hazaribag
                                                   ...      ...     Petitioners
                                      Versus
            The State of Jharkhand                 ...      ...     Opp. Party
                                       ---
      CORAM       : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
                                      ---
            For the Petitioners       : Mr. Shailesh Kr Sinha, Advocate
            For the Opp. Party        : Mr. Deepak Kumar, A.P.P.
                                      ---
04/07.04.2016

Heard Mr. Shailesh Kr Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.

Petitioners have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail, as they are apprehending their arrest in connection with Charhi P.S. Case No. 60 of 2013 corresponding to G. R. No. 2771 of 2013 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 452, 354, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/ 4 of the Prevention of Witch Craft (Diaan) Practices Act, 1999.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was an altercation between the informant as well as the petitioners which resulted in institution of initially a complaint case but subsequently a First Information Report as it was sent to the Police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel submits that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 30.05.2013 but the complaint case was lodged on 24.06.2013 and there being no explanation for such delay in instituting the complaint, the petitioners deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It appears that the petitioners have been implicated on the allegations of causing assault upon the informant as well as calling the informant a witch. From the statement of the husband of the informant which has been recorded at Paragraph - 5 of the case diary, it appears that there was altercation going between both the sides which was calmed down by the husband of the informant. This fact has been supported by the other witnesses in course of the investigation. The -2- institution of the complaint is, therefore, on account of the altercation which has taken place between the petitioners and the informant.

In view of the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioners, the petitioners, named above, are directed to surrender in the court below within three weeks from today and on such surrender, they shall be released 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 Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag, in connection with Charhi P.S. Case No. 60 of 2013 corresponding to G. R. No. 2771 of 2013, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.) Umesh/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court