KALI MANDAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Seraidhela P.S. Case No.134 of 2019 registered under sections 302 / 364 / 120B / 201 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. P.P. for the State.

(3.) The Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in criminal conspiracy with co-accused persons have abducted the deceased and murdered them and caused disappearance of the evidence of the occurrence committed by them. Drawing attention of this Court to Annexure-3 which is a report lodged by the informant immediately after the death of the deceased persons namely Kirtan Mandal and his wife Puja Devi, it is submitted that therein it has been mentioned that the deceased informed the informant i.e. her father over phone that she has been set on fire and when the informant reached the place of occurrence and the patrolling party on hearing noise of weeping came there and enquired from the informant. It is further alleged that the police patrolling party entered inside the house after breaking the lock and the informant also went inside and saw that the deceased Kirtan Mandal has hanged himself with a rope and in another room mother of Kirtan Mandal, the daughter of the informant and his grandchildren were confined and the latch was closed from the outside. It is also alleged that the daughter of the informant was taken to P.M.C.H. and admitted as an indoor patient and Kirtan Mandal was also taken by the police patrolling party and the daughter of the informant died on 28.11.2018. In the complaint which upon being forwarded to police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C ., this FIR has been lodged, it is alleged by the informant that the petitioner nos.1, 2, 3 who are the stepbrothers of Kirtan Mandal and the petitioner no.4 is the nephew of Kirtan Mandal being the son of petitioner no.2 used to threaten Kirtan Mandal to transfer his share of land in their favour or else he will face dire consequences. In the complaint, it has also been alleged that when after getting information from some persons that his daughter has been burnt, the informant reached the place of occurrence; he found the door locked from outside and the petitioner nos.1 and 3 came there and told that Kirtan has committed suicide and they will not open the door and while the informant was proceeding to the police station on the way, he met with the patrolling vehicle and informed them about the entire occurrence and after breaking open the lock, it was found that Kirtan Mandal has committed suicide by hanging himself in the Verandah and inside the room the daughter of the informant was lying with burn injuries and his daughter succumbed to the said burn injuries at P.M.C.H. during the course of treatment and the deceased daughter of the informant informed the informant that the petitioners have forcibly hanged Kirtan Mandal by tying a rope on his neck in the Verandah and after catching hold of the daughter of the informant poured kerosene over her in which her mother-in-law also cooperated with the petitioners and the petitioners set her on fire. The complainant disclosed everything to police and police after writing everything obtained the signature of the informant and went away and after remaining under treatment for three days, the daughter of the informant died. Thereafter the informant went to the house of his daughter and found only the mother-in-law and three and half year old granddaughter of the informant was present and no one else was there. The informant took his granddaughter along with him and his grandson has been abducted and is missing and thereafter, the informant went to the police station where he was driven away by the police hence, he lodged the complaint. It is next submitted that the complaint has been lodged on 11.01.2019 whereas date of occurrence is on 26.11.2018. It is also submitted that the house of the deceased is situated at a distance of 300 metres from the house of the petitioners. It is further submitted that in the video produced by the informant before the police, the victim Puja Devi has not taken the name of the petitioners and Title Partition Suit No. 23 of 2003 is pending in the court of Sub- Judge, First Court, Dhanbad in which the deceased and the petitioners were the plaintiffs and Upendra Mandal and Others were the defendants. It is next submitted that after the death of Kirtan Mandal, his son and daughter namely Pawan Mandal and Payal Kumari being minor have been substituted in Title Partition Suit No.23 of 2003. It is further submitted that the allegation against the petitioners are all false. It is next submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 22 of the anticipatory bail application. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.