Allowed

Hafiz Shabbir Ansari v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC22 Apr 2013BA/367/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was disposed of by the High Court of Bombay. The court allowed the bail application of an accused involved in murder, abduction, and ransom cases, finding the evidence against him speculative and insufficient to warrant continued detention.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail in Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount, subject to reporting to the Police Station every Sunday and Wednesday between 5.00 p.m. and 7.00 p.m.

Hafiz Shabbir Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

2-BA-367-2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.367 OF 2013

¶5

HAFIZ SHABBIR ANSARI )...APPLICANT

¶6

V/s.

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENT

¶8

Mr.S.K.Shinde Advocate for the Applicant

¶9

Ms.R.M.Gadhavi APP for the State.

¶10

Investigating Officer Mr.N.A.Saiyed, P.S.I., Gangapur Police Station, Nashik, present in court.

¶11

CORAM: ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.

¶12

DATE : 22^nd APRIL, 2013.

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

1 Heard Mr.S.K.Shinde, the learned counsel for the applicant. Heard Ms.R.M.Gadhavi, the learned APP for the State.

¶15

2 The applicant is one of the accused – accused no.3, in Sessions Case No.84 of 2013, pending before he Additional Sessions Judge at Nashik. The case is in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120-B, 363, 384 and 387 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 thereof. The allegation against the applicant and two other accused is that they abducted one Sanjiv Kumar alias Sunny sometime in the month of August 2012, murdered

¶16

avk 1/3

¶17

2-BA-367-2013

¶18

him, and threw him in a river. In the meantime, and even after the death of the said Sanjiv Kumar, they had been demanding ransom from the father of the said Sanjiv Kumar by giving threats of killing Sanjiv Kumar. Ultimately, a trap was laid and when the other two accused came to receive the ransom, stated to be Rs.2 Crore, they were apprehended. Pursuant to the information disclosed by them, the present applicant also came to be arrested. Mr.S.K.Shinde, the learned counsel for the applicant, submitted, that the case against the applicant is based only on the statements allegedly made by the co-accused.

¶19

3 I have examined the material in the charge-sheet from this point of view. The learned APP points out that there are three circumstances against the applicant. The first is that the applicant had shown the spot of incident, that is where the dead body was thrown after the murder. Admittedly, the dead body had already been discovered long back by the police, though it had not been identified at that time. This circumstance, therefore, cannot be given much value even at this stage. The other circumstance is that the applicant along with the other accused hired one vehicle, which allegedly was used in the commission of the offence. However, that such vehicle was used in the commission of the offence, is again sought to be established from the statements of the accused persons themselves. The third circumstance against the applicant is said to be the recovery of the mobile phone of the deceased, pursuant to the information given by the applicant and from the applicant’s house. However, on specifically questioning and on taking instructions from the Investigating Officer – Mr.N.A.Saiyed, P.S.I., Gangapur Police Station, Nashik, the learned APP

¶20

avk 2/3

¶21

2-BA-367-2013

¶22

admits that there is no material in the charge-sheet to indicate that the mobile phone so recovered was of the deceased or had been possessed by him before his death.

¶23

4 There are no antecedents.

¶24

5 Considering the nature of material against the applicant, I am inclined to release him on bail, subject to certain conditions.

¶25

6 The application is allowed.

¶26

7 The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, with one surety in the like amount, on the condition that the applicant shall report to Gangapur Police Station, Nashik, on every Sunday and every Wednesday, between 5.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m., till the disposal of the case against him.

¶27

8 Any default in reporting the Police station as directed above, shall forthwith be reported by the Officer-in-charge of the Police station to the learned Sessions Judge, who shall take appropriate further action in the matter.

¶28

(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.)

¶29

avk 3/3

Hafiz Shabbir Ansari v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hafiz Shabbir Ansari v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Chintamani Agashe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nandkishore B. Lahoti Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jayesh Bhagvan Lambe Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Deepak Gajanan Dhankude Vs the State of Maharashtra

Naresh Bansilal Hiran and Anr. Vs Sushanta Tapan Pore and Anr.

Mansing Yadavrao Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.