Jharkhand High Court
Sarita Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand .... .... .... ... on 27 February, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.4723 of 2024
------
Sarita Devi, aged about 50 years, wife of Doman Saw, resident of village-Hethpochra, P.O. & P.S.-Latehar, District-Latehar.
.... .... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate
: Ms. Shabina Perween, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Sushma Aind, Addl.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Rajveer Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Raj, Advocate
------
Order No.05 Dated- 27/02/2025
Heard the parties.
Apprehending her arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Latehar P.S. Case No.72 of 2024 registered under Sections 498A, 304B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the mother-in-law of Phool Kumari committed her dowry death and treated her with cruelty in connection of demand of dowry. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner does not know who has committed the murder of Phool Kumari as she was not present in the house. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been made the victim of circumstances. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the informant on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submit that this is a case of both murder simpliciter punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as well as a case of dowry death. It is next submitted that the undisputed facts remains that the deceased died otherwise than under normal circumstances within 7 years of her marriage and there is allegation against the petitioner of treating the deceased Phool Kumari with cruelty as well as harassing her in connection with demand of dowry, hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case in order to find out the details of the case and to ascertain as to who committed the murder of the deceased and how the murder of the deceased was committed. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.
Considering the serious nature of the allegation against the petitioner, the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Abhiraj/