Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1496 (JHR)

Ranjita Kindo v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-08-28

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

body2019
JUDGMENT Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. -Heard the parties. 2. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 03 of 2018, corresponding to G.R. No. 229 of 2018 registered under Sections 341, 342, 323, 354(B), 376(D), 363, 365, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 67/67(A) of I.T. Act, 2000, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Khunti. 3. It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that the offences involved in this case relates to gang rape of 5 girls who are the members of a street play group by the co-accused persons apparently under the instruction of a leader of Pathalgadi, after abducting them from Church School with which the petitioners are associated as Sisters. It is then submitted that the victims were the members of a street play group and were invited to perform a play in the said Church School. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that though the petitioners are not named in the F.I.R. yet they apprehend their arrest in connection with this case as in the charge sheet submitted against co-accused persons, it has been mentioned that investigation is going on against these petitioners as well. It is next submitted by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners are innocent and they have no connection with the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that it is evident from the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victims including the informant that nothing has been alleged against the petitioners rather it has been mentioned that the petitioners requested the co-accused persons not to abduct the victims. It is further submitted that the petitioners came to know that the Investigating Officer wanted to investigate the petitioners when notice under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. was issued to the Chairperson/Secretary/In-charge of Asha Kiran, Khunti to provide the whereabouts of the petitioners for the purpose of investigation of the case hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. 4. The learned Addl. 4. The learned Addl. PP drawing the attention of the Court to paragraph 56 of the case diary submit that the co-accused John Junas Tidu in his confessional statement has stated that after the commission of gang rape, co-accused Noble Sandipurti and Baji Samad @ Takla talked with petitioner no.1 after taking her aside and returned the mobile handset after removing the chip. It is further submitted by the learned Addl. PP that the informant Juliani Tidu, Juli Topno, Fobiano Hembram, Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Jagannath Mahto, Harilal Mahto and Santosh Hembram in their statements have raised suspicion over the father of the school as well as both the petitioners as to why the street play group of which the victims are the members were invited to the school when there was no program to be conducted in the school and after commission of gang rape, all the victims were taken to the Church School by the accused persons- who committed gang rape upon them and the accused persons behaved and met with the petitioner no.1 as if they were known to her and took petitioner no.1 to backside of the school and after having some secret talks with the petitioner no. 1 the co-accused persons returned the mobile handset of the victims and, thereafter, petitioner no.1 along with co-accused-father, who has since been convicted for the gang rape by the trial court, together convinced the victims not to disclose about the occurrence to anyone or else there will have to face dire consequences and thus saved the accused persons. It is further submitted by the learned Addl. PP that though both the petitioners were the eye witnesses of the occurrence, but they did not turn up before the Investigating Officer after several notices and after the occurrence, while returning to Ranchi, petitioner no.1 in front of the office of Deputy Commissioner, Khunti advised the victims not to report the matter and on 20.06.2018, petitioner no.1 along with a tall man pressurized the victims at Asha Kiran Shelter Home, to suppress the occurrence and deleted all the photos and videos relating to the occurrence of gang rape from the mobile of the victims. It is next submitted by the learned Addl. It is next submitted by the learned Addl. PP that though notice under Section 41(A) of Cr.P.C. was issued to both the petitioners, but they did not turn up before the police nor cooperated with the investigation of the case by not responding to notice under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. to remain present before the Mahila Police Station at Khunti, hence it is submitted that as the petitioners are not cooperating with the investigation of the case hence the custodial interrogation of both the petitioners is highly essential during the investigation of the case and keeping in view the seriousness of the offence, the petitioners ought not to be given privilege of anticipatory bail. 5. Considering the serious nature of offence involved in this case in which five victim girls of a street play group after being invited to perform in a school with which the petitioners were closely associated though there was no program to be performed by them in the said school on that particular day and ultimately victims were selectively abducted by several co-accused persons who gang raped them in most inhuman, beastly and brutal manner and after gang rape the victims were also forced to lick spit and drink urine and the fact that the petitioners are not cooperating with the investigation of the case and there is requirement of their custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case that the petitioners be given privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected.