Allowed

Ayub Khan Alias Gundus Alias Chotaku v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Mar 2016B.A./1268/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 364-A and 302 IPC, the court enlarged the petitioner on bail, noting his similarity to co-accused already granted bail and directing furnishing of bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail by furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-Latehar.

Ayub Khan Alias Gundus Alias Chotaku Vs The… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 1268 of 2016 Ayub Khan @ Gundus @ Chotaku ..... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party -------CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA -----For the Petitioner : Mrs. Renu Bala, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. --------

¶2

05/ 16.03.2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 364-A, 302, 201, 212 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with S.T. No. 51 of 2015, arising out of Barwadih P.S. Case No. 42 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 387 of 2013.

¶3

The case relates to abduction and murder of two persons, but the dead body of one of the deceased was recovered. The petitioner is not named in the FIR, though, the other co-accused persons are named in the FIR. The informant was informed by one Sarita Devi, who is also the wife of one of the victims, that the accused persons took away the victims. The petitioner is, however, not named in the FIR.

¶4

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case by the said Sarita Devi and her statement was recorded before the police, wherein she has stated that this petitioner also followed them. It is also submitted that other witnesses have also named the petitioner, who are Md. Salim Ansari and Sapil Sharma, but both these witnesses have since been examined in the Court below and they have turned hostile. Learned counsel has produced the certified copy of the depositions of these witnesses, let the same be kept on record. Learned counsel has also submitted that in the similar circumstance, the other co-accused persons have also been granted bail by order dated 1.4.2014 in B.A. Nos. 910 and 841 of 2014.

¶5

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail, but upon going through the case diary, it is admitted that the case of the petitioner is exactly on the similar footing of the co-accused, who have been granted bail by the aforesaid order.

¶6

In the facts of this case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner, Ayub Khan @ Gundus @ Chotaku, on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge-Latehar, in connection with S.T. No. 51 of 2015, arising out of Barwadih P.S. Case No. 42 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 387 of 2013.

¶7

( H. C. Mishra, J.)

¶8

Amitesh/-

Ayub Khan Alias Gundus Alias Chotaku v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayub Khan Alias Gundus Alias Chotaku 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Rai Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Ved Narrayan Yadav And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Rajesh Choudhary Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Kalawati Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Md Ashraf Ali Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Prakash Sahu Alias Chotu Alias Chaddi Vs The State Of Jharkhand