Urmila Trivedi vs State Of Jharkhand And Others

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the notice dated 15.10.2018 issued by S.D.P.O., Dumri, Giridih was challenged in W.P.(C) No.3581 of 2018 which was dismissed and the petitioner has preferred L.P.A. No.110 of 2019 and in the said L.P.A., there is observation of the Division Bench that the plot no.153-B recorded in the name of Manoj Choudhary has been purchased by the petitioner and the case is not set up by the State of Jharkhand rather apprehension of the investigating officer is that the property was purchased by Manoj Choudhary in the name of the petitioner. The Division Bench has also observed that the investigating officer has produced the records which reveal that no evidence was collected on this aspect and there is no material to indicate any kind of association of the petitioner with Manoj Choudhary. He submits that in view of that, the said notice was quashed and the investigating officer was put at liberty to de-seal the premises and permit the petitioner to take peaceful possession of the same. He submits that the said plot is the subject matter in the present F.I.R.

In view of above and considering the observation of the Division Bench, the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with Madhuban P.S. Case No.04 of 2018, G.R. No.489 of 2018, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, at Giridih.

The petitioner shall cooperate in the investigation.

Mr. Deepankar Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State shall take instruction and file counter affidavit within two weeks after Deepawali Vacation.

Let it appear on 06.12.2023.