This bail application under Section 371 IPC was rejected. Although the petitioner alleged false implication, the court refused bail as the victim remained untraceable.
Prayer for bail rejected; petitioner not enlarged on bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 3628 of 2015
Md. Mustak Ansari ..... … Petitioner Versus
The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA
-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. --------
4/ 10.07.2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution.
The petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Section 371 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Dumka (M) P.S. Case No. 21 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No. 282 of 2014.
There is direct allegation against the petitioner to have taken away the husband of the informant to Kashmir.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and has prayed for bail.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted from the case diary that the victim is still traceless.
In the facts of this case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner, Md. Mustak Ansari, on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected.
( H. C. Mishra, J.)
R.Kr.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, falsely implicated in abduction and taken-to-Kashmir accused under Section 371, is entitled to bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Md. Mustak Ansari
The State of Jharkhand
H. C. Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
