Mohan Gope vs The State of Jharkhand

I.A. NO. 4904/2017

It appears that this appeal was admitted for hearing on 10.07.2017 and the LCR was called for.

After receipt of LCR, an application being I.A. No.4904/2017 under Section 389 (1) of the Cr.P.C . has been filed for grant of bail of the appellants during pendency of this appeal, who have faced the trial in S.T. No. 546/2013 in which learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum-F.T.C., Jamshedpur vide judgment of conviction dated 05.06.2017 and order of sentence dated 09.06.2017 held them guilty and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs.20,000/-each u/s 306/34 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine they shall further undergo R.I for 6 months. It was further directed that the total fine amount so deposited by the appellants i.e. Rs.60,000/- out of which Rs.45,000/- shall be paid to the father of the deceased girl, namely, Shivjee Pandey by way of compensation.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that from perusal of evidence of PW-6, informant-Shivjee Pandey who is father of the deceased has supported the prosecution case and the prosecution has hinges suicidal note of the deceased (Ext-1) which was identified by PW-4. The I.O. (PW-8) has also identified the seizure list of dupatta and the suicidal note of the deceased in presence of PW-3. Learned counsel for the appellant has further referred the evidence of PW-8 and submitted that at para-25 of his cross- examination, he has conceded that he did not get the hand writing of suicide note examined by hand writing expert, so this cast serious doubt as to whether the same has been written by the deceased or not. Hence appellants deserve bail.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the informant has appeared and oppose the prayer for bail of the appellants and submitted that PW-1- mother of the deceased, PW-3-brother-in-law of the deceased have categorically stated that they have identified the writing of the deceased in the suicide note. Hence appellants does not deserve bail.

After hearing both the parties and going through the entire records and the impugned judgment, it appears that the appellant nos. 2 and 3, namely, Rinku Devi & Manju Devi who are women and they are languishing in jail custody since 05.06.2017, I am inclined to admit the appellant nos. 2 and 3, namely, Rinku Devi & Manju Devi on bail and suspend the sentence awarded to the appellants, namely, Rinku Devi & Manju Devi and they are directed to be released on bail, during pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum-FTC, Jamshedpur in S.T. No. 546/2013., subject to further condition that they will deposit the fine amount of Rs.20,000/- each in the court below at the time of furnishing of bail bonds and after deposition of the aforesaid amount the court below shall accept the bail bonds of the appellants.

Thereafter the court below will issue notice to the informant-Shivjee Pandey (PW-6) and on his appearance and on proper verification the court below will release the aforesaid amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rs.15,000/- each from both the appellants as awarded by the court below) in favour of PW-6- Shivjee Pandey.

So far, appellant no.1 is concerned, he is uncle of deceased-Anita Kumari and most of the witnesses have categorically stated that there were quarrel between the family members of deceased-Anita Kumari and the appellant no.1 used to taunt her because earlier Anita Kumari used to give tuition to the children of Gopal Pandey but the performance of the children was not up to mark so she stopped giving tuition to the children of Gopal Pandey. By doing such type of acts the appellant no.1 instigated the deceased-Anita Kumari to commit suicide and thereby there is direct allegation against appellant no.1.

In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to enlarge the appellant no.1, namely, Gopal Pandey on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is hereby rejected.

However, appellant no.1, namely, Gopal Pandey is directed to renew his prayer for bail after six months.

I.A. No. 4904 of 2017 stands disposed of.