Dhuchu Oraon And Ors vs State of Jharkhand

Heard the parties through video conferencing. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No.1574 of 2016 registered under sections 302/364/ 467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein cognizance has been taken under section 468 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in furtherance of criminal conspiracy have fraudulently withdrawn Rs.38,74,000/- awarded in favour of the husband of the complainant after committing abduction and murder of the husband of the complainant. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is then submitted that the deceased husband of the informant has alleged to have been murdered though cognizance has been taken under section 468 of the Indian Penal Code only. It is then submitted that it is further alleged that is the deceased husband of the complainant was a practising advocate at Ranchi, hence there has not been any occasion for him to put his thumb impression over the voucher by which the said amount has been taken away from the account of the husband of the complainant. It is next submitted that the petitioner no.1 is a 92 years old Paralytic patient and the petitioner no.2 is a student and is preparing for various competitive examinations. It is next submitted that the relationship between the complainant has her husband was not good and the complainant made several complaint against her husband and the complainant also filed Maintenance Case No. 81 of 2010 against her husband. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that there is serious allegation against the petitioners of defrauding Rs.38,74,000/- hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case and the recovery of the defrauded amount. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners as well as the 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 where the above named petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail of the above named petitioners is rejected.