Allowed

Abdul Mazid Ansari and Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC12 Sept 2014B.A./5184/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application regarding offences of dacoity under Sections 395, 412, and 420 IPC, the High Court of Jharkhand granted bail to the petitioners. The court observed that the victim failed to identify the accused in court during the depositions, which influenced the decision to release them on bail upon furnishing bonds.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to be released on bail on furnishing bonds of Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

Abdul Mazid Ansari and Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 5184 of 2014 1. Abdul Mazid Ansari 2. Israil Ansari ..... … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party -------CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA -----For the Petitioners : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. --------

¶2

05/ 12.09.2014 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution.

¶3

The petitioners have been made accused for the offences under Sections 395, 412 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with S.T. No. 171 of 2014, arising out of Dhalbhumgarh P.S. Case No. 51 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 430 of 2013.

¶4

The case relates to dacoity and the case was instituted against unknown. In view of the fact that the petitioners were apprehended from a vehicle, from which, the looted articles were also recovered, which were identified in the Test Identification Parade, bail applications of these petitioners were earlier rejected twice on merits.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioners has renewed the prayer for bail submitting that the informant of the case has since been examined and he has not identified the petitioner in the Court.

¶6

The FIR clearly shows that the informant had claimed to identify the accused persons. The deposition of the informant has been brought on record, which shows that he has not identified any of the accused persons, present in the Court. It is stated on affidavit that the petitioners were produced in the Court on that date.

¶7

In the facts of this case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioners, Abdul Mazid Ansari and Israil Ansari, on bail. Accordingly, the petitioners, named above, are directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each, with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghatshila, in connection with S.T. No. 171 of 2014, arising out of Dhalbhumgarh P.S. Case No. 51 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 430 of 2013.

¶8

( H. C. Mishra, J.)

¶9

Amitesh/

Abdul Mazid Ansari and Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Mazid Ansari and Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhanajay Banerjee And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Santosh Saw and Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Vikash Kumar Singh Alias Bikash Alias Bikku Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Tribhuwan Mahto Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Dilip Yadav and Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Sarif Mian Vs The State Of Jharkhand