Sahnaz Khatoon And Ors vs State Of Jharkhand

Order No.03 Dated- 13.01.2020

Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Madhupur P.S. Case

No.335 of 2016 (G.R. No. 921 of 2016) (S.T. Case No.164 of 2017) registered under sections 341/342/ 324/326/307/498A/304B/34 of the Indian

Penal Code.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. P.P. for the State.

The Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that petitioners who are the sister-in-law (gotni) of the

deceased Nikhat Praveen have committed the dowry death. It is further submitted that the allegation against the petitioners are all false and further

submitted drawing attention of this Court to Annexure-2 series at page nos.16-27 of the brief that is the deposition of the witnesses in the Sessions

Trial No.164 of 2017, in which the father-in-law of both the petitioners is facing the trial and in which so far the six witnesses have been examined and

all the material witnesses being the P.W.1-Md. Mobin Ansari who is the father of the deceased, P.W.2-Noushad Mian who is the maternal uncle of

the deceased, P.W.4-Nasrul Sah who is the paternal uncle of the deceased by village relationship, P.W.5-Abdul Hafiz who is the cousin brother of the

deceased and P.W.6-Iliyas Ansari who is another cousin brother of the deceased have all stated that the deceased was having good relationship with

her in-laws and the P.W.6 has even stated that the deceased died while preparing food in the oven, that the petitioners are no way responsible for the

death of the deceased. It is next submitted that P.W.3- the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination, has stated that the burn injuries was so

serious and extensive that the deceased might be in a state of shock so she must have been unable to speak while reaching hospital, as she sustained

95 % burn injuries, so the alleged fardbeyan creates a doubt more so as none of the material witnesses of the case examined in the said Sessions Trial

disclosed that the deceased stated anything in their presence rather all of them stated that she was not in a position to speak when they reached the

hospital. It is further submitted that both the petitioners are females. It is then submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the

investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the above named petitioners

be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of this order,

they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each

to the satisfaction of learned A.S.J-II, Deoghar, in connection with Madhupur P.S. Case No.335 of 2016 (G.R. No. 921 of 2016) (S.T. Case No.164

of 2017) with the condition that the petitioners will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before the Investigating Officer as and

when noticed by him and will furnish their mobile numbers and a copy of their Aadhar Cards in the court below with the undertaking that they will not

change their mobile numbers during the pendency of the case subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.