The petitioner accused of dacoity under S. 395 IPC sought regular bail alleging false implication and lack of evidentiary value of his confessional statement. The Court rejected the bail application, noting recovery of the looted van from the petitioner's possession.
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. 6777 of 2019
Iklakh Ansari
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shravan Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. G.B. Rao, Advocate -----
04/16.08.2019 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is an accused for the offences punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Hunterganj P.S. Case No. 228 of 2018, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra.
The 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 against unknown miscreants. The petitioner has been implicated in this case on the basis of his confessional statement made before the police which has no evidentiary value in the eye of law. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 03.05.2019 and as such, he may be given the privilege of regular bail.
The learned A.P.P. while opposing the petitioner’s prayer for bail submits that looted Bolero pick-up van has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and co-accused Tuntun Yadav by Civil Lines (Gaya) police. Thereafter, seizure list has also been prepared by the police. There being direct involvement of the petitioner in commission of the alleged offence, he may not be given the privilege of regular bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Manish
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, falsely implicated and in custody since 03.05.2019, is entitled to regular bail.
Whether recovery of a Bolero pick-up van from the petitioner establishes direct involvement justifying denial of bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Iklakh Ansari
The State of Jharkhand
Rajesh Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
