Partly allowed

MD Afjal v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 Oct 2020B.A./5040/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail matter under Sections 302, 201, and 120B IPC, the High Court of Jharkhand rejected the petitioner's application. The court observed that a co-accused's confession led to the recovery of a deceased person's mobile from a well, creating sufficient grounds to deny bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected. Trial to be concluded within one year. Petitioner expected to cooperate.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI [CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION]

¶2

B.A. No. 5040 of 2020

¶3

…....

¶4

Md. Afjal …… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through : Video Conferencing)

¶8

----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, A.P.P -----

¶9

02/Dated: 05/10/2020:

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has given an undertaking to comply the previous order with regard to removal of the defect(s).

¶11

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Shekhar Sinha.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has prayed for grant of regular bail in connection with Burmamines P.S. Case No.59 of 2019 (S.T. No.35 of 2020/M.C.A. No.692 of 2020), for the offence registered under Sections 364/34 IPC and subsequently Sections 302, 201 and 120B IPC has been added.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that FIR has been lodged against Raj, Raja and Basant, but the petitioner is not named in the FIR. Coaccused persons namely, Basant Upadhyay and Raunaq Singh have been arrested by the police and co-accused, Basant Upadhyay disclosed the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged offence and thereafter he was also arrested on 03.09.2019.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that co-accused, Basant Upadhyay gave inculpatory statement before the police showing his involvement and involvement of this petitioner at 13.05 hours on 03.09.2019 and the same police officer subsequently recorded confession of this petitioner on 13.50 hours on 03.09.2019 and pursuant thereto a mobile purported and alleged to be of the deceased has been recovered from the well of one Lakho Singh.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the confession of co-accused, Basant Upadhyay has disclosed this fact to the investigating officer which leads to recovery of the alleged mobile of the deceased from a well. The said confession cannot be considered against this

¶16

-2-

¶17

petitioner whose confession was subsequent to the confession of co-accused, Basant, as such, the case will not come under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that even Section 10 of the Evidence Act further shows that the element of conspiracy is missing in this case, as such, there is no legal material against the petitioner to refuse the prayer for bail as his name transpired in the confessional statement of the co-accused.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that petitioner is in custody since 04.09.2019, as such, he may be enlarged on regular bail.

¶20

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the confession of co-accused, Basant Upadhyay was not known to the petitioner as both were arrested separately and on their confession, a mobile was recovered which belongs to the deceased, as such, this petitioner has involvement in the case.

¶21

Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that whatever the criminal antecedent has been mentioned in the counter-affidavit those are mentioned on the basis of history ticket of the petitioner and in para 66 of the supplementary case diary there are altogether six cases against the petitioner.

¶22

Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into the confession of both the accused leading to recovery of the mobile of the deceased from the well Lakho Singh.

¶23

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

¶24

However, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within one year after the physical court starts within giving unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.

¶25

It is expected that petitioner shall co-operate during the trial.

¶26

( Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

¶27

Sandeep/R.S.

MD Afjal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Afjal 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

Alfa Kujur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tasran Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bimal Tatwa Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pradip Mohli Vs the State of Jharkhand

Umesh Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sonu Kumar Alias Sonu Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand