Disposed

Shamim Ansari v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Aug 2016B.A./4496/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to enlarge the petitioner's bail in an undertrial proceedings under Sections 304(B) and 34 IPC. The trial was in progress with 4 out of 9 witnesses examined, expected to conclude in November 2016. The court directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for bail disposed off; High Court directed trial court to expedite trial and train conclusion by November 2016.

Shamim Ansari Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B.A. No. 4496 of 2016

¶3

Shamim Ansari ……..Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand ………. Opposite Party --------CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA

¶6

---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. N.P. Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Mr. S.K. Keshri, A.P.P. -----------

¶7

05/Dated:17.08.2016

¶8

The petitioner has been made an accused for the offence registered under Sections 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the husband but the offence under Sections 304(B)/34 of Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner and in fact the deceased had committed suicide. It is submitted that the deceased was earlier married with one Azad Ansari and she was unhappy with her marriage with the petitioner and on several occasions she had left the house on her own accord but when she was forced to live with this petitioner she went in state of depression and committed suicide which is supported by post-mortem report wherein the doctor has opined that death was due to asphyxia due to hanging. That the petitioner is in custody since 27.08.2015 and the trial has not been concluded as yet.

¶11

Learned A.P.P. has opposed and submitted that the trial is going on and prior to the occurrence, a panchayati had taken place for resolving the dispute between the petitioner and the deceased and thereafter, the deceased was taken by the petitioner to his home and subsequently, she died in unnatural circumstances.

¶12

Heard. As per the status report called for, the trial is in progress and out of 9 witnesses, 4 witnesses have been examined, and it is mentioned that the trial is likely to be completed by November, 2016, hence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. However the trial court shall expedite the trial and conclude it by November 2016, failing which, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the court below and the court below shall pass necessary order on consideration of the material evidence led during trial.

¶13

With the said observation and direction, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby disposed off.

¶14

(Amitav K. Gupta, J.)

¶15

Tarun/-

Shamim Ansari v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamim Ansari 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

Jayanta Dey Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Imtiyaz Ansari Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Satendra Yadav Alias Satyendra Yadav Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Rinku Kumar Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Sakendar Kumar Yadav Alias Sakindra Yadav Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Rohan Bhuiyan Alias Rahul Manjhi Vs The State Of Jharkhand