Allowed

Nashrat Khan Alias Nasrat Khan Alias Afjal Ahmad v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Mar 2023Cr.A(DB)/226/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal challenging the rejection of bail. The High Court found no specific overt acts alleged beyond finding a bomb via a door hole in a counterblast case. The impugned bail rejection order was quashed and the appellant directed to be released on bail.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 04.02.2023 rejecting bail was quashed. The appellant directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties of similar amount.

Nashrat Khan Alias Nasrat Khan Alias Afjal Ahmad Vs the… — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No.226 of 2023

¶3

------

¶4

Nasharat Khan @ Nasrat Khan @ Afjal Ahmad

¶5

…. …. Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand ....

¶8

.... Respondent

¶9

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

¶10

------ For the Appellant : Mr. R.S. Majumdar, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mr. S.K. Tiwari, APP

¶11

------

¶12

04/Dated: 15.03.2023

¶13

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

¶14

The instant appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act for quashing the order dated 04.02.2023 passed in Bail Petition No.111 of 2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad in connection with Tisra P.S. Case No.94 of 2022 for the offences registered under Sections 341, 452, 307, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3/4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for regular bail filed on behalf of the appellant has been rejected.

¶15

2. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the present case is nothing but counter blast to the case instituted by the mother of the appellant being F.I.R. No.0265 dated 05.12.2022, as would appear from annexure-2 to the appeal, wherein, the informant of the present case along with his family members have been arrayed as accused. It has been submitted by referring to the F.I.R. that no overt act has been alleged, rather, only allegation has been leveled that the bomb

¶16

¶17

and thread along with Sutli was found having been seen by the informant from the hole of the door.

¶18

Submission has been made that this fact has not been considered by the learned Court in right perspective and as such, the instant appeal.

¶19

3. Mr. S.K. Tiwary, learned APP appearing for the State has submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the court below in rejecting the bail, rather, the learned Court below has considered each and every aspects of the matter and after taking into consideration the specific allegation attributed against the appellant, as would appear from para- 5, 6 and 7 of the case diary, the impugned order has been passed and as such, the same requires no interference.

¶20

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and appreciated the material available on record.

¶21

5. It appears that there is no specific overt act has been alleged against the appellant, save and except, that the disclosure has been made that bomb with Sutli was found with the appellant having been seen by the informant from the hole of the door.

¶22

There is no averment regarding any casualty having been taken place. Further, it appears that prior to institution of F.I.R. being F.I.R. No.0094 dated 21.12.2022, mother of the appellant has already instituted an F.I.R. against the informant and his family members, as would appear from Annexure-2 to the appeal.

¶23

6. This Court, after taking into consideration these aspects of the matter is of the view that the impugned order dated 04.02.2023 passed in Bail Petition No.111 of 2023 requires interference.

¶24

7. Accordingly, the order dated 04.02.2023 passed in Bail Petition No.111 of 2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad in

¶25

¶26

connection with Tisra P.S. Case No.94 of 2022, is hereby quashed and set

¶27

aside.

¶28

8. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.

¶29

9. In consequence thereof, the appellant, above named, is directed to

¶30

be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Tisra P.S. Case No.94 of 2022.

¶31

10. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.

¶32

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶33

(Subhash Chand, J.)

¶34

Rohit/-

Nashrat Khan Alias Nasrat Khan Alias Afjal Ahmad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nashrat Khan Alias Nasrat Khan Alias Afjal Ahmad 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

Birendra Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

Radhe Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Topno Kandulna Alias Dupan Alias Dupan Kandulna Vs the State of Jharkhand

Hasina Khatoon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pappu Kumar Alias Kuri Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ms Santosh Construction through Its One of the Partner Santosh Kumar Singh Vs Union of India through the National Investigation Agency