Neeta Narang @ Nita vs State of Jharkhand and Another

D.G.R. Patnaik, J.—The petitioner, who is accused for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

Informant/Opposite Party No. 2 has filed his presence through his lawyer.

Heard Sri. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the informant and also the learned Counsel for the State.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the instant case against the petitioner is totally misconceived and as a matter of fact, she has no role whatsoever for the alleged offence and merely because of the fact that she happens to be the wife of accused No. 1, she has also been made accused in this case. It is further submitted that the petitioner''s husband who is accused No. 1, has since been granted anticipatory bail and the petitioner also deserves the same privilege. Learned Counsel submits further that earlier the petitioner had moved the Sessions Court with a prayer for anticipatory bail which was disposed of with an observation directing the petitioner to surrender before the Court below and pray for regular bail and a corresponding direction was also given to the trial Court to consider the prayer in the light of the fact that the petitioner''s husband, who is co-accused, was granted anticipatory bail by an order of the High Court. It is submitted that surrender petition though filed on behalf of the petitioner but the petitioner on account of her personal indisposition and illness could not make her personal appearance before the Court below and as such she could not sign the petition proposed on behalf of her. The fact, however, although the petitioner did not file her personal appearance before the Court below to file the petition on her behalf, but the petition was filed and learned Counsel for the petitioner was heard and thereafter the prayer for bail was refused from the Court below. Learned Counsel explains that since the petitioner did not surrender before the Court below, thereafter the apprehension of her arrest for the alleged non-bailable offence continues to exist and hence she has filed the present anticipatory bail application. Learned Counsel adds further that earlier to this anticipatory bail application, an application for anticipatory bail was filed on behalf of the petitioner vide A.B.A. No. 1870 of 2008 but the same was withdrawn under the permission of this Court, thereafter, the present anticipatory bail application has been filed.

Highlighting the contents in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the informant, Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the informant would submit that as a matter of fact, the entire facts and circumstances would indicate and confirm that the petitioner had not only escaped from the lawful custody of the trial Court but had also suppressed the material facts before this Court in her Anticipatory Bail Application. Learned Counsel while referring to the order dated 14.8.2008 passed by the trial Court explains that from the aforesaid order it appears that the petitioner had filed her personal appearance in compliance of the order of the Sessions Court in her earlier Anticipatory Bail Application and her prayer for regular bail was heard in presence of lawyer and the trial Court being not satisfied, had rejected her prayer for regular bail with a direction for her remand to custody. When such order was passed, the petitioner conveniently escaped from lawful custody of the Court below. This fact was suppressed by the petitioner in her earlier Anticipatory Bail Application filed before this Court and when this matter was sought to be pointed out by the informant, the said petition was withdrawn.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner would dispute that notwithstanding the aforesaid order referred to by the informant as passed by the learned trial Court, the fact according to his own instruction is that the petitioner has not surrendered herself or appeared before the Court below on the aforesaid date.

Be that as it may, a presumption can reasonably be drawn from the order of the trial Court to believe that the petitioner had initially filed her personal appearance before the trial Court and when her prayer for bail was rejected, she did not surrender herself to the custody of the Court below. This being a matter of serious concern, it does not call for a lenient view of the matter merely because the petitioner happens to be a lady.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner is directed to surrender herself before the Court below within 15 days from the date of this order and pray for regular bail. The trial Court shall make a fresh consideration of the petitioner''s prayer on merits and in terms of the direction earlier given by the Sessions Judge in his order in the anticipatory ball application of the petitioner ''and also on the basis of the other facts that the husband of the petitioner as well as two other co-accused have been enjoying the privilege of anticipatory bail, without being prejudiced on account of the petitioner''s earlier conduct referred to in the lower Court''s order dated 14.8.2008. The learned trial Court shall dispose of the prayer for bail on the date of filing itself.

With these observations, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of.