Gaytree Devi @ Gayatri Kumari @ Gayatree Devi Prasad vs State Of Jharkhand

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J

I.A. No.14627 of 2025

Heard the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this interlocutory application has been filed for early hearing of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition.

Since, the hearing of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application stands disposed of being infructuous.

Cr.M.P. No.606 of 2025

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa in connection with Chaibasa Sadar P.S. Case No.65 of 2023.

Initially, though the case was instituted involving the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325, 427, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code but police after investigation of the case, submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners for having in furtherance of their common intention committing the murder of Vinod Kumar Das. The petitioners did not appear after submission of the charge-sheet in the trial court even though they were on police bail. The learned trial court considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pradeep Ram vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2019 Supreme (SC) 716 and also reported in (2019) 17 SCC 326 paragraph-31 to 31.4 of which read as under:-

“31. In view of the foregoing discussions, we arrive at the following conclusions in respect of a circumstance where after grant of bail to an accused, further cognizable and non-bailable offences are added:

31.1. The accused can surrender and apply for bail for newly added cognizable and non-bailable offences. In event of refusal of bail, the accused can certainly be arrested.

31.2. The investigating agency can seek order from the court under Section 437(5) or 439(2) CrPC for arrest of the accused and his custody.

31.3. The court, in exercise of power under Section 437(5) or 439(2) CrPC, can direct for taking into custody the accused who has already been granted bail after cancellation of his bail. The court in exercise of power under Section 437(5) as well as Section 439(2) can direct the person who has already been granted bail to be arrested and commit him to custody on addition of graver and non-bailable offences which may not be necessary always with order of cancelling of earlier bail.” (Emphasis supplied)

cancelled the bail granted to the petitioners in view of commission of the serious offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the petitioners and taking cognizance of the said offence by the learned Magistrate. The landed Magistrate then issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that the petitioners have co-operated with the trial. It is further submitted that the cognizance of the offence has been taken arbitrarily. It is also submitted that the learned trial court considered the judgment of Pradeep Ram vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another (supra) erroneously. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.

Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submits that in view of the settled principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pradeep Ram vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another (supra) particularly in paragraph- 31.3, the learned Judicial Magistrate was empowered to cancel the bail in view of submission of the charge-sheet against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, there is no illegality in the said order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa in connection with Chaibasa Sadar P.S. Case No.65 of 2023. It is, therefore, submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pradeep Ram vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another (supra) has categorically held in paragraph-31 of the said judgment by answering the question “Whether in a criminal case, where an accused has been bailed out, if subsequently new offence is added, is it necessary that the bail earlier granted should be cancelled for taking the accused in custody”; that in such an eventuality, the court can exercise the power under Section 437 (5) or 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, can direct for taking into custody the accused who has been granted bail, after cancellation of his bail on addition of graver and non-bailable offence.

Now, coming to the facts of the case; the undisputed fact remains that the charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioners for having committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the cognizance of the said offence has already been taken by the learned Magistrate.

Under such circumstances, keeping in view the seriousness of the offence involved, this Court do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa in connection with Chaibasa Sadar P.S. Case No.65 of 2023 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa has cancelled the bail granted to the petitioners on addition of graver and non-bailable offences.

Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.