CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2011) 12 JH CK 0102

Sephali Mahto vs The State of Jharkhand and others

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 7 December 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.K. Merathia, J · Prashant Kumar, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
WP-HB. CR No. 154 of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 383 words
1.

Mr. A.K. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the husband of the petitioner, Dileshwar Mahto was released on personal bond by Jamshedpur police after he was arrested at Goa. He further submitted that the personal bond is written in Hindi but he knew only Bengali and it is not known who are the witnesses in the personal bond. He lastly submitted that the respondents be directed to produce him before this Court. On being asked, he admitted that the petitioner has filed a complaint case at Jamshedpur regarding missing of her husband.

2.

Pursuant to the order dated 21.11.2011 Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Sr. Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur is present in the Court. He explained that only for the purpose of enquiry in connection with Golmuri P.S. Case No. 30 of 2010 dated 2.2.2010 registered against un-known, husband of the petitioner was searched and found with the help of local police at Goa and then he was brought to Jamshedpur for further enquriy. Thereafter, he was released on personal bond on 26.7.2010. He was not an accused and was not arrested at that time. Later on it was reveled that Dileshwar Mahto, husband of the petitioner is absconding in two cases of West Bengal i.e. Jhargram P.S. Case No. 188 of 2009 dated 28.10.2009 and Jhargram G.R.P. Case No. 06 of 2009 dated 28.10.2009.

3.

The explanation of the respondents that Dileshwar Mahto was not arrested and only enquriy was being made and therefore he was released on personal bond at Jamshedpur after bringing him from Goa is reasonable explanation, and accordingly accepted.

4.

Petitioner could not dispute that Dileshwar Mahto had put his signature in English on the personal bond. Only because it was written in Hindi, petitioner cannot be allowed to dispute the release of Dileshwar Mahto on personal bond. Petitioner is also not alleging that her husband is in custody/confinement of Jamshedpur police. It further appears that he also signed in Bengali language in Annexure-A under his English signature. It further appears that petitioner has filed a complaint case being Complaint Case C1/1519 of 2011 regarding missing of her husband and the same is pending.

5.

In the circumstances, in our opinion, no grounds are made out for issuing writ of Habeas Corpus. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.