The petitioner, an accused implicating false involvement with limited evidence against him, sought bail. The High Court, considering insufficient admissible evidence connecting him to the alleged offence, granted regular bail.
Petitioner directed to be released on bail by furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties.
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. 3492 of 2017
Md. Faiyaz Khan ….. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party ----- CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Petitioner: Mr. Pran Pranay For the State: Mr. Ravi Prakash, A.P.P
02/05.05.2017 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is an accused in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 307/120B/34 IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and has not committed any offence, as alleged. The petitioner has not been named in the F.I.R. During the investigation, the police initially apprehended the coaccused Md. Firoz Khan on whose confessional statement the coaccused Imtiaz Ansari @ Rahman was apprehended. The name of the petitioner has surfaced on the alleged confessional statement of Imtiaz Ansari @ Rahman as one of the persons involved in commission of the alleged offence. However, except the said confessional statement, the police has not collected any other admissible evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. Co-accused Arvind Bhai Patel and Sanjeev Kumar Mahto @ Jeevan Kumar Mahto have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 07.12.2016 passed in B.A. Nos. 9268/2016 & 9300/2016 respectively. Co-accused Imtiaz Ansari @ Rahman has also been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.01.2017 passed in B.A. No. 10849/2016. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 29.07.2016 and therefore he may be given the privilege of regular bail.
Learned A.P.P opposes the petitioner’s prayer for bail.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I
am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the above named petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bailbond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi in connection with S.T. No. 629/2016, arising out of Shukhdeo Nagar P.S. Case No. 310/2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 3082/2016.
(RAJESH SHANKAR, J)
Satish/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, an accused in an offence under Sections 307/120B/34 IPC and Arms Act, should be granted regular bail.
Whether lack of admissible evidence beyond a co-accused's confessional statement warrants bail release.
Md. Faiyaz Khan
The State of Jharkhand
Rajesh Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
