Dismissed

Bashir Ansari And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC2 May 2018Cr.M.P./1240/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two criminal miscellaneous petitions by petitioners, aggrieved by an order taking cognizance under SC/ST Act and IPC sections for murder, were dismissed. The High Court upheld the summons order as sufficient evidence in the case diary implicated the petitioners. The trial court was directed to conclude the trial.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petitions and directed the trial court to conclude the trial at the earliest.

Bashir Ansari And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand — Caste Atrocities | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. M.P. No. 1240 of 2007

¶3

Bashir Ansari

¶4

Eqbal Ansari

¶5

Shamshad Ansari @ Shamsher @ Shamshed Ansari .... Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand 2. Talamay Marandi … Opposite Parties

¶8

With Cr. M.P. No. 38 of 2010

¶9

Hurmuj Ansari

¶10

Mohammad Alam @ mahmood Ansari @ Mohammad Ansari .... Petitioners

¶11

Versus

¶12

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶13

¶14

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶15

--For the Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate (In Cr. M.P. No. 1240 of 2007) & Mr. P. K. Verma, Advocate (Cr. M.P. No. 38 of 2010) For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, APP For the O.P. 2 :

¶16

Order No. 12 Dated 02^nd May, 2018

¶17

Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Cr. M.P. No. 1240 of 2007, Mr. P. K. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Cr. M.P. No. 38 of 2010 and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the State. No one appears on behalf of opposite party No. 2.

¶18

Since the impugned order in both these applications are common, these applications are being disposed of by this common order.

¶19

The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 16.08.2007 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda in Special Case No. 13 of 2007 by which cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable u/s 147, 148, 149, 364 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶20

Initially an F.I.R. was instituted by one Talamay Marandi which was registered as Boarijor (Lalmatia) P.S. Case No. 50 of 20076. After conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted only against one Kurban

¶21

¶22

Ansari and the petitioners in the present case were not sent up for trial. The learned magistrate had differed with the final form and had taken cognizance of the offences and summoned the petitioners also to face trial.

¶23

Submission has been advanced that the impugned order does not contain any cogent reasons and mere mention of certain paragraphs of the case diary has been made and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, differing with the final form submitted in favour of the petitioners, summoned the petitioners to face trial.

¶24

Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners.

¶25

The impugned order clearly reveals that reference of certain paragraphs of the case diary indeed has been made and discussion about the statements recorded in those paragraphs in which it has come that the present petitioners had also indulged in assaulting the deceased Manjhi Murmu with Lathi and Danda, as a result of which he died.

¶26

Since sufficient evidence had come in the case diary, implicating the petitioners and the same having been properly discussed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, while differing with the final form so submitted in favour of the petitioners and summoning them to face trial, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. These applications sans merit, are accordingly dismissed.

¶27

However, the learned court below is directed to conclude the trial at the earliest.

¶28

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

¶29

Bashir Ansari And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bashir Ansari And Ors. v. 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

Dwarika Pandit Vs State of Jharkhand

Rajesh Tiwar Vs Union of India And Anr.

Badal Gope And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Jogendra Ravidas Vs State of Jharkhand

Abdul Salam Lokhu Sheikh Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

B.M.Khaitan B.M.Khetan Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Dwarika Pandit Vs State of Jharkhand

Rajesh Tiwar Vs Union of India And Anr.

Badal Gope And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Jogendra Ravidas Vs State of Jharkhand

Abdul Salam  Lokhu Sheikh Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

B.M.Khaitan  B.M.Khetan Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Abdul Salam Lokhu Sheikh Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

B.M.Khaitan B.M.Khetan Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.