Allowed

Mubarak Ansari Alias Mobarak Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC19 Jan 2022B.A./12793/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the petitioner's application for regular bail in an offence under Sections 366/34/120B IPC. The court considered the delay in the trial due to the pandemic but noted that the victim had already been married and the relevant witnesses were examined, affecting the relevance of the earlier order. Consequently, the petitioner was released on bail under specified conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail by furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties of the like amount, subject to specified conditions regarding location, quarantine, and pandemics.

Mubarak Ansari Alias Mobarak Ansari Vs the State of… — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

(CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION)

¶3

B.A. No. 12793 of 2021

¶4

Mubarak Ansari @ Mobarak Ansari …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through : Video Conferencing) ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, A.P.P. -----

¶6

03/Dated: 19/01/2022:

¶7

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, A.P.P.

¶8

Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has prayed for grant of regular bail in connection with Haidarnagar P.S. Case No. 79 of 2018 , corresponding to G.R. Case No.2042 of 2018 (S.T. No.448 of 2019), for the offence registered under Sections 366/34/120B IPC.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that earlier the prayer for bail of this petitioner was rejected by this Court in terms of order dated 29.05.2020, passed in B.A. No.2360 of 2020 with a condition that, if the trial is not concluded even though the petitioner has cooperated during trial, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after the period of six months from the date of production of copy of the order.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that four witnesses have been examined including father and mother of the victim. Father (D.W.-1Ram Chandra Prajapati) has categorically stated at para 12 of his deposition that at the time of occurrence his daughter was aged about 18 years, but at para 13 of his deposition he has categorically stated before the police that he has mentioned the age of his daughter as 19 years and she was studying in B.A. part-I. This witness has categorically stated at para 16 of his deposition that he has solemnized the marriage of his daughter in the last year on 25.06.2020. Therefore, the victim is not being examined in this case though the petitioner is languishing in custody since 01.10.2018, as such, petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Arup Kumar Dey has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the trial could not be completed within six months because of the lockdown arising out of the Covid-19, as such, petitioner may not be enlarged on regular bail.

¶12

-2-

¶13

Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and considering that victim has already married with somebody else on 25.06.2020 though P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 (parents of the victim) have been examined in this case on 04.09.2021 and P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 have already been examined on 09.09.2021, as such, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, petitioner (Mubarak Ansari @ Mobarak Ansari), is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Palamau, in connection with Haidarnagar P.S. Case No. 79 of 2018 , corresponding to G.R. Case No.2042 of 2018 (S.T. No.448 of 2019) on the following conditions:-

¶15

(i) One of the bailors shall be deponent of the present petition namely, Rasid Ansari, S/o Mahiuddin Ansari, R/o Village- Kudwa Khurd, P.O.- Karimandih, P.S.- Haidarnagar, District- Palamau (Jharkhand).

¶16

Office is directed to send photo copy of the UID Card of deponent along with this order to the court below so as to verify the authenticity of the bailor.

¶17

(ii) Another bailor shall be close relative of the petitioner.

¶18

(iii) Petitioner shall appear before the learned trial court on each and every date till conclusion of the trial.

¶19

(iv) Petitioner and his bailors shall not change their residential address without prior permission of the learned court below.

¶20

(v) The Jail Authority shall release the petitioner only after his medical check-up. (vi) The Civil Surgeon, Palamau is directed to medically examine the petitioner at the time of his release and if requires, petitioner shall be taken for quarantine, but if no such requirement is there, he shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.

¶21

(vii) Petitioner shall also comply with all the guidelines issued by the Government to meet the challenges of Covid-19, as the country is passing through Pandemic of Covid-19.

¶22

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

¶23

R.S.

Mubarak Ansari Alias Mobarak Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mubarak Ansari Alias Mobarak 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhano Oraon And Ors. Vs Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Bablu Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jai Deo Ray Vs M/S.Tata Robins Frazer Ltd.

Deba Munda Alias Soma Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Suraj Agrawal Alias Suraj Agarwal Vs the State of Jharkhand through Acb

Mohan Kumar Alias Mohan Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand