Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 231 (JHR)

Baby Chatterjee v. State of Jharkhand

2023-02-22

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2023
ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Apprehending her arrest in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No. 233 of 2022 instituted under Sections 193, 386, 387, 418, 420, 468, 469, 506, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved to this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail. 3. As per F.I.R, informant Rakesh Kumar is owner of Hard Coke factory situated at G.T. Road Govindpur, Dhanbad. It is alleged that since last 3-4 months informant was receiving call from some antisocial elements at his coal Bhatta. On 13.06.2022, C.C.T.V. footage of informant’s factory was made viral by owner of News channel 11 Bharat, who demanded Rs. 11,00,000/-(Eleven lacs) as rangdari to stop the defematory news, out of which Rs. 6,00,000/-(six lacs) were paid to reporter of Arup Chatterjee (owner of News eleven11) at Chanchani Colony, a video clip and conversation with Arup Chatterjee has been recovered. It is further alleged that inspite of payment of Rs. 6 lacs as extortion money, his factory was raided by mining officials and factory was put under vigil of C.C.T.V. installed by accused persons as disclosed by manager of News 11, Bharat, namely, Parmeshwar Nath Rai. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather she has been falsely implicated in this case during investigation. It is submitted that petitioner has only 50 % share in the company and her work is only to see the functioning of News channel and is not involved in any particular news of the channel. It is further submitted that in the course of investigation no evidence has been brought on record to establish the fact that petitioner has conspired with other co-accused persons to extort money from the informant. There is no allegation against the petitioner constituting any of the offences mentioned in the F.I.R. It is submitted that main accused Arup Chatterjee has been granted regular bail and co-accused Arun Kr. Burnwal has also been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. The case of petitioner stands on better footing. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case and also abide by all terms and conditions which may be imposed in the matter of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The case of petitioner stands on better footing. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case and also abide by all terms and conditions which may be imposed in the matter of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail. 5. Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of allegation coupled with materials on record, I am inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below within four weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrendering, he will be enlarged 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 Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No. 233 of 2022 with the condition that she will co-operate with the investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and furnish her mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card 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 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.