IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 1727 of 2011
1. Mozibullah @ Mohibullah
2. Sajena Bibi
3. Jantula Ansari
4. Sarwar Ansari
5. Aanul Mian @ Anu Mian
6. Hashbun Khatoon .... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
---
CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. UPADHYAY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Nazia Rashid
For the State : A. P. P.
---
3. 5.9.2011
: This application for grant of anticipatory bail in connection
with Chainpur P.S. Case No. 211 of 2010 corresponding to G.R.
Case No. 2345 of 2010 registered under Sections
364/302/325/504/201 and 120B I.P.C., pending in the court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj, has been filed
on behalf of petitioners, named above.
It reveals from the complaint that all the accused persons
reached to the house of the complainant on a Commandar Jeep
and on the pretext that daughter-in-law of the informant is lying ill,
took Jalaluddin with them who is the husband of accused
Hashbur Khatoon. When the informant tried to know whereabouts
of the son Jalauddin, he could learn that he is traceless and he
has not gone to Mumbai. When the informant went to the house
of accused persons he was assaulted and sustained fracture
injury on his hand.
It is submitted that Hashbun Khaton who is daughter-in-law
of the present informant, has lodged a case against the informant
and his son and other relatives under Section 498A I.P.C. The
informant has lodged this case after delay of 7 months only to
create pressure against his daughter-in-law to withdraw the case.
No such incident, as disclosed in the F.I.R., has ever taken place.
Learned counsels appearing for the State as well as the
informant have opposed the prayer and submitted that the
witnesses examined in paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15 of the
case diary have supported the prosecution case.
I have gone through the F.I.R., the case diary and the
documents placed before me. It is apparent that relation between
two families was not cordial and Jalaluddin (son of the informant)
was living in her in-laws’ house and he was insisted to sell his
land and bring money. Since the son of the informant is still
traceless and there is direct allegation against these petitioners
that they had forcibly taken the victim with them, I do not find this
case is fit to be considered under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected.
(D.N. Upadhyay, J.)
MK