Allowed

Samsuddin Alias Raju Alias Md Shamsuddin v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Aug 2016B.A./3429/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to the petitioner, who was the second accused in a kidnapping and murder case. Despite the imposition of the death penalty charge for the deceased's father, the Court was inclined to grant bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each.

Samsuddin Alias Raju Alias Md Shamsuddin Vs The State Of… — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No.3429 of 2016

¶2

Samsuddin @ Raju @ Md. Shamsuddin …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party

¶3

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

¶4

For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate For the State : A.P.P

¶5

03/Dated: 03/08/2016

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with Mango P.S. Case No. 628 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No. 4032 of 2014 (S.T. No. 206 of 2015), for the offence registered under Sections 364, 302, 201, 364(A), 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code but charge-sheet has been submitted under sections 363, 364(A), 302, 201, 120B & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

¶8

This case has been instituted on the basis of self-statement of Ajay Kumar Gupta, alleging therein that his father namely, Bhagwan Das on 29.12.2014 at about 6.30 came out of his house in scooty bearing no. JH05Z-4715 for his office and he was seen there upto 7.30. It is further alleged that daily he used to come by 9 to 10 but today he has not reached till 12 therefore, suspicion has arisen that his father has been kidnapped.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not named in F.I.R, and he has been implicated in this case on the basis of confessional statement. The petitioner is in custody since 21.01.2015. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. There is nothing except suspicion against the petitioner. It is further submitted that T.I.P has been conducted but the articles have not been identified by the informant. Police after investigation submitted final form and charge has already been framed on 28.07.2016 in S.T. No. 206 of 2015. It is further submitted that co-accuse of this case namely, Imran Ansari @ Haris has already been granted bail by this Court in B.A. No. 4038 of 2015.

¶10

Learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer for bail and filed counteraffidavit. Referring to para 9 of the counter-affidavit, learned A.P.P has submitted that in para 56, 66, 82, 87, 116, 117 & 118 of the case diary, it has been mentioned that alleged suspicious mobile number has been found in the name of one Sodan Samad and vide para 199 of the case diary, Sodan Samad confessed under Section 164 Cr.P.C that the aforesaid suspicious mobile had left on the shop of shoes and slipper (sandal) during

¶11

the purchasing. Vide para 130 of the case diary, co-accused Imran Ansari confessed before the I.O that he had got the suspicious mobile no. 9909577620 and he had given the said mobile to Md. Samsuddin @ Raju (petitioner) and also Imran Ansari has confessed that the said mobile was used by the petitioner and his girl friend for kidnapping and ransom. In para 138 of the case diary, the petitioner has confessed his guilt and manner of kidnapping and killing of deceased before the I.O. It is further submitted that jewellery and ornaments had been snatched by the accused persons and had been sold in the shop of Tanmay Dey at Bakura (W.B.), the same has been seized by the police after obtaining the information from petitioner and other co-accused persons and also Tanmay Dey has confessed under section 164 Cr.P.C vide para 189 of the case diary.

¶12

Taking all these facts, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, accordingly, the above named petitioner 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 Addl. Sessions Judge-V, (I/C) Jamshedpur in connection with Mango P.S. Case No. 628 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No. 4032 of 2014 (S.T. No. 206 of 2015), subject to condition that one of the bailors must be close relative of the petitioner and the petitioner shall remain physically present before the Trial Court as and when his presence is required by the Trial Court, failing which it is open to the Trial Court to cancel the bail bond of the petitioner.

¶13

(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)

¶14

Satyarthi/-

Samsuddin Alias Raju Alias Md Shamsuddin v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samsuddin Alias Raju Alias Md Shamsuddin 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

Uday Kumar Roy Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Baban Yadav Alias Baban Kumar Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Ram Salok Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Md Ibrar Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Ranjeet Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Rajesh Sharma Vs The State Of Jharkhand