This single bench judgment rejected the petitioner's bail application in a dacoity case involving firearm injury. The court refused to enlarge the accused on bail based on the nature of the offence and facts.
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. 9934 of 2015
Md. Azad Ansari @ Md. Azad
@ Md. Azad ...… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ...… Opposite Party -------CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA -----For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Sahani, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. ------
2/06.1.2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the
State.
The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Bahragora (Barsole) P.S case No. 61 of 2014 corresponding to G.R No.266 of 2014, for the offence under Sections 394 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
The case relates to dacoity, in which, the informant was also injured by the culprits by firearm.
The impugned order shows that the petitioner has been identified in T.I. Parade.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner, Md. Azad Ansari @ Md. Azad, on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is hereby rejected.
( H. C. Mishra, J.)
BS/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner shall be granted bail in a dacoity case involving firearm injury to the informant.
Interpretation of Section 394, 397 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act in context of bail eligibility.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Md. Azad Ansari @ Md. Azad
The State of Jharkhand
H. C. Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
