Allowed

Jainul Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Apr 2018Cr.A(SJ)/219/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal by Jainul Ansari challenging the rejection of bail. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the release of the appellant on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 and two sureties, noting the allegations were general and omnibus.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 17.01.2018 set aside; appellant directed to be released on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of like amount.

Jainul Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Caste Atrocities | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.219 of 2018

¶3

Jainul Ansari	------ .... .... …. Appellant *Versus*
1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Santosh Baitha	.... .... .... Respondents ------
AM : HON'BLE MR. JUS	TICE ANIL KUMAR CHOU ------
For the Appellant	: Mr. R. Kumar, Advocate
For the State	: Addl. P.P.
For the Respondent No.2	: Mr. R. Kerketta, Advocate ------

¶4

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶5

Order No.03 Dated- 17.04.2018

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Addl. P.P. for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶7

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 17.01.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sahibganj in connection with Barhait P.S. Case No.51 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No.536 of 2017 registered under Sections 341/323/353/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 (1) (v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Section 54 of Mining Act, whereby and whereunder the learned court below rejected his prayer for regular bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned court below failed to take note of the fact that the appellant has been in custody since 06.12.2017 and the allegation against the appellant are general and omnibus in nature. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order of learned court below be set aside and the appellant be admitted to bail.

¶9

Learned Addl.P.P. assisted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 defends the impugned order and opposes the prayer for bail.

¶10

Considering the submissions of the learned counsels and facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that this is a fit case where the appellant be released on bail. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.01.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sahibganj in connection with Barhait P.S. Case No.51 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No.536 of 2017, being not sustainable in law is set aside and the appellant named above, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-

¶11

(Rupees ten thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sahibganj in connection with Barhait P.S. Case No.51 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No.536 of 2017 during the pendency of the case.

¶12

In the result, this appeal stands allowed.

¶13

Sonu/Gunjan-

¶14

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

Jainul Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jainul 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Binay Singh Deo Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dilip Prasad Alias Dilip Kumar Alias Deelip Kumad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Binod Ram Alias Binod Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Arjun Vishwakarma Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Ranjeet Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Radha Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand