Allowed

Ainul Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC23 Mar 2023Cr.A(DB)/223/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ainul Ansari appealed against the Additional Sessions Judge's order rejecting his bail. Holding that his implication was based merely on being the brother of another accused and noting co-accused were acquitted, the High Court quashed the order and granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 21.10.2022 quashed and set aside; Appellant directed to be released on bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties.

Ainul Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Corruption | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 223 of 2023

¶4

---------

¶5

Ainul Ansari, aged about 41 years, son of Late Ibrahim, resident of VillageUdaypura, P.O. Madhupur, District Deoghar and also resident of villageNawadih, P.O. and P.S. Madhupur, District-Deoghar.

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

……. Respondent

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

¶9

---------- For the Appellant : Mr. Sudhanshu Kr. Deo, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Santosh Kr. Shukla, APP

¶10

----------- 05/Dated: 23^rd March, 2023

¶11

The instant appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, against the order dated 21.10.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Madhupur, Deoghar in S.T. No.118A of 2019 registered for the offence under Sections 302, 120B/34 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act.

¶12

As per the prosecution version, it appears that the case was instituted on the basis of fard beyan of Md. Salim that on 10.07.2011 at about 3:00 p.m. he along with Halim Ansari, Lukman and Mustafa and aunty Shehru Bibi were standing in front of the house on village lane. At that time he saw Jainul, Ainul, Rafique, Babar Mian, Sikandar, Azad Mia, Sahadat Mian were also standing before their house. Suddently, Munni Bibi w/o Jainul and Salo Bibi w/o Azad Mian brought bomb from their house and gave in the hands of Sikandar and Sikandar handed over two bombs over his brother Halim and in result he died on the spot. The reason behind the occurrence is long standing land dispute between the parties. The accuse persons wanted to dispossess the informant’s side from that land which they are residing since last 50 years. After investigation the I.O. had submitted charge sheet against 10 accused persons, namely, Azad Mian, Babar Mian, Sikandar Mian, Sahadat Mian, Salo Bibi, Ainul Ansari, Jainul Ansari, Rafique Ansari @ Katu Mian, Munni Bibi, Rafique Ansari under Sections 302, 120B/34 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act and the learned court of SDJM Madhupur after splitting the case of absconders namely,

¶13

¶14

Rafique Ansari@ Katu Mian, Ainul Ansari and Jainul Ansari committed the case of the rest accused persons which was registered as S.T. Case No. 91 of 2014 and the case of the above mentioned absconder accused persons committed later on and registered as S.T. case No. 118 of 2019. Further the case of Ainul Ansari and Jainul Ansari again got split due to absence and registered as S.T. Case No. 118A of 2019.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has falsely been implicated merely for the reason that he happens to be the brother of Jainul Ansari and no overt act has been alleged against him.

¶16

It has been submitted that although the case has been instituted under Sections 3/4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act also but it would appear from the FIR or from the impugned order that there is no reference of having discovered from the possession of appellant any incriminating article.

¶17

It has further been submitted that other co-accused persons who have faced trial, have been acquitted and he is in custody since 08.10.2022.

¶18

Mr. Santosh Kr. Shukla, learned APP has submitted by referring to the First Information Report that specific allegation has been levelled against the appellant and after taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the learned trial court has rejected the prayer for bail, as such, the same may not be interfered with.

¶19

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including FIR and the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned order.

¶20

It prima facie appears therefrom that the implication of appellant is on the basis of the fact that he happens to be the brother of Jainul Ansari. It also appears that other persons, who have faced trial, have been acquitted.

¶21

Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the prima facie view that the order dated 21.10.2022 requires interference.

¶22

Accordingly, the order dated 21.10.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Madhupur, Deoghar in S.T. No.118A of 2019 is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶23

¶24

In consequence thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.

¶25

10.Accordingly, the appellant is directed to be released from judicial custody on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Madhupur, Deoghar in connection S.T. No.118A of 2019.

¶26

11.The instant criminal appeal stands disposed of.

¶27

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶28

(Subhash Chand, J.)

¶29

Saurabh /-

Ainul Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ainul 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Majibul Ansari Vs the National Investigating Agency New Delhi

Ashraf Ali Khan Vs State of Jharkhand

Sabitri Karmkar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashish Kumar Sah Alias Ashish Kumar Shah Vs the State of Jharkhand

Durga Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Faiyajuddin Vs the State of Jharkhand