Allowed

Khaju Ansari Alias Raju v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC1 May 2017B.A./1853/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application, the petitioner accused of robbery under Section 394 IPC contended false implication and lack of test identification parade. The court, considering the facts, granted regular bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate (Railway), Dhanbad.

Khaju Ansari Alias Raju Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B.A. No. 1853 of 2017

¶3

Khaju Ansari @ Raju …Petitioner

¶4

-V e r s u s-

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

...Opp. Party

¶7

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶8

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy , Advocate For the State :- Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, A.P.P.

¶9

03/01.05.2017 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

Petitioner is an accused in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. Initially, the F.I.R. was lodged in the year 2008 for committing train robbery by 3-4 unknown miscreants. However, the petitioner was arrested by the police on 07.01.2017 with an allegation that one of the looted mobile phones was being used by the petitioner by inserting some other SIM. It is also alleged that on the confession of the petitioner, one looted watch was recovered from the house of late Mathura Singh. Since the said Mathura Singh is no more, the allegation that the watch was given to him by the petitioner cannot be legally established. Neither the petitioner nor any recovered article was put on test identification parade. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 07.01.2017 and therefore, he may be given the privilege of regular bail.

¶12

Learned A.P.P. opposes the petitioner’s prayer for bail.

¶13

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate (Railway), Dhanbad in connection with Gomia G.R.P.S. Case no. 05 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. case no. 46 of 2008.

¶14

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶15

Ritesh

Khaju Ansari Alias Raju v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khaju Ansari Alias Raju 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

Vinod Kumar Alias Binod Kumar Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Md Shamim Alias Shamim Akhter Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Zaffer Ali Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Kalo Hari Singh Munda Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Kunal Mahto Alias Kunal Ram Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Sunil Kumar Jha Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Vigilance Acb