High Court Jharkhand High Court

Santosh Mandal vs State Of Jharkhand on 29 July, 2011

Jharkhand High Court
Santosh Mandal vs State Of Jharkhand on 29 July, 2011
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                                      B.A. No.4457 of 2011
             Kalwatiya Devi                                   ...    ......          Petitioner
                                         Versus
             The State of Jharkhand          ....   ...  ....        ...             Opp. Party
                                            with
                                    B.A. No.4466 of 2011
             Santosh Mandal                              ...         ......          Petitioner
                                             Versus
             The State of Jharkhand          ....   ...  ....        ...             Opp. Party

             CORAM:         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. UPADHYAY
                                       ------
             For the Petitioners       :       Mr. P.C. Sinha, Advocate
             For the Opp. Party        :       A.P.P.
03 /29.07.2011

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioners are accused in a case registered under Section 304(B)/34 of the

Indian Penal Code in connection with B.T.P.S. P.S. Case No.10 of 2011, corresponding

to T.R. Case No.486 of 2011 which is pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M. at

Tenughat.

It is alleged in the First Information Report that Gudia Devi was subjected to

torture and treated with cruelty by her husband and in-laws for want of Rs.2 lakhs. A

sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid after which the life of Gudia Devi became normal for

some time but again she experienced same behaviour. On 06.02.2011 Gudia Devi

died due to poisoning.

It is submitted that the demand of Rs.2 lakhs was made by the husband and

the petitioners are innocent and they have committed no offence. It is further

submitted that no specific allegation against any of the petitioners has been levelled.

Cause of death has been kept reserved by the doctor who conducted autopsy and

report of F.S.L. has not yet been received. Under these circumstances the petitioners

may be granted bail.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and drawn my

attention towards P.M. report and evidences collected in the case diary.

The P.M. report indicates that the deceased was having injuries on her neck

and near the mouth which suggests that poison was administered to her. It appears

that a bride lost her precious life within two years of her marriage.

Considering aforesaid aspects of the matter, I am not inclined to enlarge the

petitioners on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioners stands rejected.

(D.N. Upadhyay, J)
NKC