Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1320 (JHR)

Babita Kumari v. State of Jharkhand

2025-05-07

SANJAY PRASAD

body2025
JUDGMENT : This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the Appellant challenging the order dated 05.12.2024, passed in M.C.A. No. 549 of 2024, by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh, by which prayer for bail made on behalf of the Appellant, namely Babita Kumari has been rejected in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No.255 of 2023, registered for the offence under Sections 302/120(B)/34 of I.P.C. and for the offence under Section 3 (2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. It is alleged that one Sunil Singh, who is said to be the son-in-laws of Informant Muniya Devi had committed the murder of her deceased daughter Savitri in her house and fled away. It is alleged that the Appellant-Babita Devi was having illicit relationship with said co-accused Sunil Singh and for which there was quarrel between the deceased daughter of the Informant and the Appellant used to instigate co-accused Sunil Singh against the deceased. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Informant has falsely implicated the appellant in this case and they were not creating nuisance with the public in general and they were not abusing the public in general on the eve of New year of 4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the appellant was having illicit relationship with co- accused Sunil Singh, who had committed the murder of the deceased Savitri. It is submitted that the appellant used to instigate co-accused Sunil Singh against the daughter of the Informant and there is strong suspicion against the appellant for instigating the co-accused Sunil Singh for committing the murder of the deceased, hence the prayer for bail may be rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the Informant, after adopting the argument of learned A.P.P., submitted that the appellant is named in the F.I.R. and she had instigated co-accused Sunil Singh to commit murder of daughter of the Informant. 5. Learned counsel for the Informant, after adopting the argument of learned A.P.P., submitted that the appellant is named in the F.I.R. and she had instigated co-accused Sunil Singh to commit murder of daughter of the Informant. It is submitted that there are several witnesses, namely Muniya Devi, i.e. the Informant, Ranjit Bhuiya, Kanchan Bhuiya, Puja Devi, Sonali Kumari, Shiv Nath Singh, Pano Devi, Anjali Devi, Malti Devi and Anil Kumar and who have supported the allegation that there was quarrel between co-accused Sunil Singh and deceased Savitri inside the room and after knocking the door by the neighbours, Sunil Singh came out of the room and had fled away and the deceased Savitri was found lying dead on the cot. They have also stated that appellant was having illicit relationship with the said co-accused Sunil Singh and she used to instigate Sunil Singh against the deceased Savitri Devi and hence, prayer for bail may be rejected. 6. It appears from the F.I.R. that the death of deceased Savitri had taken place inside the house of the Informant and the co-accused Sunil Singh had fled away from her house. 7. It appears from the statements of witnesses, namely Muniya Devi, i.e. the Informant, Ranjit Bhuiya, Kanchan Bhuiya, Puja Devi, Sonali Kumari, Shiv Nath Singh, Pano Devi, Anjali Devi, Malti Devi and Anil Kumar recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in Enclosures I to VIII and Para 144, 145 and 146 of the Case Diary that there was a dispute between co-accused Sunil Singh and deceased Savitri inside the room and co-accused Sunil Singh had fled away after opening the door when neighbours had come and deceased Savitri Devi was found dead lying on a cot inside the room. 8. It appears that the Appellant, namely Babita Devi was not present in the house of the Informant on the date of occurrence. 9. It also appears that the Appellant, namely Babita Kumari is pregnant and her expected date of delivery is in the last week of June, 2025. 10. Considering the period of custody and the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant namely, Babita Kumari is directed to be released on Bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with P.S. Case No.255 of 2023, to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh. 11. 10. Considering the period of custody and the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant namely, Babita Kumari is directed to be released on Bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with P.S. Case No.255 of 2023, to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh. 11. Thus, Order dated 05.12.2024, passed in M.C.A. No. 549 of 2024, by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh, in connection with Ramgarh P.S.Case No.255 of 2023 is set aside. 12. Thus, this Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 141 of 2025 is allowed.