Allowed

Ashif Nashim v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC23 Jun 2021Cr.A(SJ)/368/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against rejection of bail in a case involving sexual assault and SC/ST atrocities held. Accused was in custody since 06.01.2020. Investigation completed. Bail granted on security along with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed to be enlarged on bail by furnishing bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties of like amount, submitting Aadhar copy, and maintaining active mobile number.

Ashif Nashim Vs the State of Jharkhand — Caste Atrocities | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.368 of 2020

Ashif Nashim

…… Appellant

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

¶7

2. Kirti Karan Lakra ….. Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶9

For the Appellant : Mr. J. S. Tripathy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl.P.P For the Resp. No.02 : Mr. Navneet Toppo, Advocate ---------

¶10

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

¶11

---------

¶12

05/Dated: 23rd June, 2021

¶13

1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 29.01.2020, passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge – I, Latehar, in Misc. Cr. Application No.21 of 2020, arising out of Mahuadanr P.S. Case No.43 of 2019, registered under Sections 323, 341, 504, 354/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (For short the SC/ ST Act), whereby the prayer for bail, to the appellant, has been rejected.

¶14

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is in custody since 06.01.2020. The investigation has been completed and the appellant is ready to co-operate with the trial. It has further been submitted that the allegation has been made against this appellant and six other persons that after taking wine they have sexually assaulted the victim lady while she, along with her family members, was going for pre-wedding photograph sessions. It has been submitted that F.I.R was lodged on 04.12.2019 while the alleged incident took place on 23.11.2019. It has been submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case due to local dispute. On the above facts, prayer for bail of the appellant has been made.

¶15

- 2 -

¶16

3. On the other hand, learned Special P.P and learned counsel for the respondent No.02 have opposed the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the respondent No.02 has submitted that there is direct allegation against this appellant.

¶17

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the investigation has been completed and the period of custody, the appellant is directed to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge – I, Latehar, in connection with Misc. Cr. Application No.21 of 2020, arising out of Mahuadanr P.S. Case No.43 of 2019, on the condition that the appellant will submit self-attested photocopy of his Aadhar Card and also submit his mobile number before the learned court below which he will always keep active and will not change it during pendency of the case prior permission of the court.

¶18

5. In the result, the appeal is, hereby, allowed.

¶19

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶20

Chandan/-

Ashif Nashim v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashif Nashim v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rupesh Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Aman Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nitish Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Raghunandan Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Satyendra Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sahil Vs the State of Jharkhand