Dismissed

MD Amzad Alias Amzad v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC8 Oct 2020A.B.A./4787/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court heard an application for anticipatory bail. While the petitioner alleged an accidental death with compensation already paid, the court rejected the prayer due to the serious nature of murder allegations and the necessity of custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail prayer rejected due to serious murder allegations requiring custodial interrogation.

MD Amzad Alias Amzad Vs the State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.4787 of 2020

¶2

------

¶3

------

¶4

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P

¶5

Order No.02 Dated- 08.10.2020

¶6

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

¶7

Mr. Rahul Pandey- learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.

¶8

In view of personal undertaking given by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.

¶9

Apprehending their arrest in connection with Bariyatu P.S. Case No.94 of 2019 instituted under Section 302/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners along with the deceased- Sushil Kumar Das were working in the construction of Library Building of RIMS, Ranchi and when the other workers went to the market, the petitioners scuffled with the deceased by which the deceased fell down from the roof and was injured and upon being taken to RIMS Emergency Ward, he was declared brought dead. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is then submitted that the deceased died by an accident and the father of the deceased has received Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation from the construction company. It is also

¶11

submitted that the petitioners are innocent. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶12

Learned A.P.P appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that there is specific allegation against the petitioners of scuffling with the deceased by which the deceased fell down which led to his death hence there is requirement of their custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case. It is therefore submitted that the petitioners ought not be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶13

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners of murdering the deceased and the requirement of their custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case where the privileges of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the above named petitioners is rejected.

¶14

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶15

Animesh/

MD Amzad Alias Amzad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Amzad Alias Amzad 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

Pramod Pandit Vs the State of Jharkhand

Babu Lal Gorai Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dhanu Rana Vs the State of Jharkhand

Krishna Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhushan Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lakhan Lal Barnwal Alias Lakhanlal Beranwal Vs the State of Jharkhand