Jharkhand High Court
Shweta Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand .... Opposite ... on 7 March, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 1079 of 2025
----
Shweta Devi, Aged about 43 years, Wife of Rajkumar Ojha, Resident of Isri Bazar, PO & PS Nimiaghat, District Giridih (Jharkhand). .... Petitioner
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, Advocate Mr. Manjeet Kr. Chaudhary, Advocate Mr. Imran Beig, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Prabir Kr. Chatterjee, Advocate
----
02/07.03.2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest, in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No. 100 of 2023, for the offence registered under Sections 379, 411, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, section 13 of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2017 and Rule 54 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Koderma.
3. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the prayer for anticipatory bail of this petitioner with regard to the said P.S. case was rejected by the order dated 01.05.2024 passed in A.B.A. No. 1840 of 2024, against --1-- A.B.A. No.1079 of 2025 that, the petitioner has moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 40896 of 2024, which was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 19.09.2024. He submits that review petition was also filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, being Review Petition (Crl.) No. 546 of 2024, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4. He further submits that the petitioner is made accused in five cases and all five cases have been dismissed by this Court on 01.08.2024 and for rest of the four cases also the petitioner moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in rest of the four cases has allowed the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 13568 of 2024, S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 14162 of 2024, S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 13917 of 2024 and S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 13569 of 2024 respectively.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in those cases have been pleased to grant interim relief by the orders dated 27.09.2024, 04.10.2024 and 14.10.2024 respectively and those interim orders have been made absolute by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the order dated 04.12.2024, however the SLP filed by the State for granting anticipatory bail to another co-accused by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the said order. He submits that the vehicle and the articles have already been released in favour of the respective persons. On that ground, he submits that the anticipatory bail application may --2-- A.B.A. No.1079 of 2025 kindly be granted.
6. Mr. Prabir Kr. Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submits that the anticipatory bail application so far as the present PS case is concerned has already been rejected by this Court and the same has also been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and review was also dismissed and as such no fresh ground is made out to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. It is an admitted position that the petitioner is an accused in five cases and in all five cases separate ABAs have been filed before this Court, which have been dismissed by the order dated 01.05.2024. So far as another four cases, the petitioner has also moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to grant anticipatory bail in four of the cases. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has further granted anticipatory bail to another co-accused person, which has been challenged by the State before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the said petition filed by the State was dismissed by the same order by which, in four cases, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail.
8. Admittedly, all the ABAs by this Court have been rejected on the ground that the petitioner was having criminal antecedent. It is well settled that criminal antecedents of the accused must be weighed for purpose of granting bail. Whether parity can be claimed by any other accused on basis of the order granting bail, it is --3-- A.B.A. No.1079 of 2025 subject matter of the present case. Whether an order granting a bail is a precedent on grounds of parity is a matter for future adjudication, if and when an application for bail is moved on the grounds of parity on behalf of another accused. In the event that parity is claimed in such a case thereafter, it is for that Court before whom parity is claimed to determine whether a case for grant of bail on reasons or parity is made out or not.
9. Even while considering the ground of parity not only the weapon, but individual role attributed to each accused must be considered. The grant of bail is a matter which implicates the liberty of the accused, the interest of the State and the victim of crime in the proper administration of criminal justice. It is well settled principle that in determining as to whether bail should be granted the High Court or for that matter the sessions court deciding an application under section 439 Cr.PC would not launch upon a detailed evaluation of facts on merits since a criminal trial is still to take place. But the court granting bail cannot obviate its duty to apply a judicial mind and to record reasons, brief as they may be, for the purpose of deciding whether or not to grant bail. This is for the reason that the outcome of the application has a significant bearing on the liberty of the accused on one hand as well as the public interest in the due enforcement of criminal justice on the other. The rights of the victim and their families are at stake as well.
10. Liberty is a priceless treasure for human being. It is --4-- A.B.A. No.1079 of 2025 founded on the bedrock of constitutional right and accentuated further on human rights principle. It is a cardinal value on which civilization rests. It cannot be allowed to be paralysed and immobilized. Deprivation of liberty of a person has enormous impact on his mind as well as body. But, liberty of an individual is not absolute. Society by its collective wisdom through process of law can withdraw liberty and it has sanctioned to an individual when an individual becomes a danger to collective and to societal order. Accent on individual liberty cannot be pyramided to that extent which would bring chaos and anarchy to a society. A society expects responsibility and accountability from its members and it desires that the citizens should obey the law respecting it as a cherished social norm.
11. Coming to the facts of the present case what has been discussed in above, the petitioner, who is having the criminal antecedent, has been granted anticipatory bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in four of the cases and thus the orders of this Court was under challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in one case, it has been rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
12. Considering that subsequently the vehicle and articles have also been released as has been submitted in favour of the respective persons and in four cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted bail and one of the Co-ordinate Bench has granted bail to another co-accused which has been challenged by the State before --5-- A.B.A. No.1079 of 2025 the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was dismissed.
13. In that view of that matter, the Court finds that a ground is made out to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. It is well settled that if a fresh ground is made out, second anticipatory bail can be entertained by the High Court.
14. Hence this Court grant the anticipatory bail to the petitioner and in the event of her arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of this order she, above named, shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000 (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Koderma, in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No.100/2023, with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and furnish her mobile number and the copy of the Aadhar Card before the concerned court with an undertaking that she will not change her mobile number during the pendency of the case and subject to the conditions as laid down under section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
15. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) RKM/ A.F.R. --6-- A.B.A. No.1079 of 2025