Munwa Devi And Ors vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr on 30 June, 2017

[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Munwa Devi And Ors vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr on 30 June, 2017

Bench: Anant Bijay Singh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              A.B.A. No. 3603 of 2016

1. Munwa Devi @ Manwa Devi @ Bhuneshwari Devi
2. Basu @ Basudeo Mahto
3. Ravi Verma @ Ravikant Verma             ..... Petitioners
                        Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Anr.              ..... Opp. Party
                         ---------
CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH
                          ---------
For the Petitioners     : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate.
For the State           : A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2      : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate.
                     ---------
09/Dated: 30/06/2017

     Three petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Protest-cum-Complaint Case No. 1949 of
2013, registered under Sections 304(B) / 34 of the I.P.C.,
pending in the court of learned C.J.M., Giridih.
     It appears that one Madhusudan Verma, opposite
party no. 2 had earlier lodged an F.I.R. on the same set of
facts before the Taratanr P.S. and Taratanr P.S. Case No. 28
of 2011 dated 30.08.2011 under Sections 304B / 34 of the
I.P.C. was instituted alleging that his daughter Munia Devi
was married with Kuldeep Verma four years ago and she
went to her sasural and after one month, the accused
persons including petitioners started torturing her with
demand of one motorcycle and T.V. and on 30.08.2011,
informant received information that his daughter has died
by falling in well. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the
instant case has been instituted.
     It appears that police after investigation submitted
final form vide Final Form No. 51 of 2013 dated 30.09.2013
finding the case to be false. Thereafter, protest-cum-
complaint was filed and after holding inquiry, learned
Rajesh Sinha, J.M., 1st Class, Giridih under order dated
01.04.2015

found prima facie case under Sections 304B, 34 I.P.C. Hence, this anticipatory bail application.

Notices were issued to opposite party no. 2 and L.C.R. was called for.

Pursuant thereto, opposite party no. 2 appeared. It was argued that since petitioner no. 3 Ravi Verma @ Ravikant Verma is a juvenile, so his anticipatory bail is not maintainable.

-2-

So after going through the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2005, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that this anticipatory bail application is maintainable under the provisions of Section 22 of the Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which reads as under :-

"22. Proceeding under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure not to apply against Child- Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( 2 of 1974), or any preventive detention law for the time being in force, no proceeding shall be instituted and no order shall be passed against any child under Chapter VIII of the said Code.

This provision has to be read along with Section 4 of the Cr.P.C which reads as under:-

(1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be investigated inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained. (2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into tried and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences.

The matter was heard on maintainability of bail of petitioner no. 3, so after hearing the parties, I am of the considered view that provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not excluded under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, so the anticipatory bail is maintainable.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that save and except suspicion there is nothing against the petitioners.

It appears that Social Investigation Report of petitioner no. 3 was called for from the Probation Officer, Giridih.

Report reveals that Ravi Kant Verma was married and was blessed with daughter, aged seven months and they come from lower class family and he has no criminal antecedent and his brother is a mason. Petitioner no. 3 is a labourer. So, it is submitted that petitioners deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

-3-

On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

Be that as it may, I am inclined to admit the petitioners on anticipatory bail. The above named petitioners are directed to surrender in the Court below within four weeks from the date of this order and in the event of their arrest or surrender, the Court below shall enlarge the above named petitioners on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Giridih, in connection with Protest-cum-Complaint Case No. 1949 of 2013, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Sunil/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court