Suleman Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

The learned counsel for the petitioners has taken this Court to the written report of the informant, which was converted into FIR, and has pointed out that as per the allegation, it seems that prior to the death of the deceased, there were altercations amongst the deceased, his family members and his wife. As per the FIR itself, apparently no one has seen the occurrence and there is no eye-witness to the occurrence, therefore, the allegations are based on suspicion on the basis of prior altercations amongst them. The learned counsel has further submitted that allegations are strengthened by the confessions made by the petitioners, which have no evidentiary value in the eye of law. The learned counsel has further submitted that no incriminating article has been recovered from these petitioners, therefore, there is nothing to pinpoint against them for the murder of the deceased. The learned counsel has further submitted that on 10.01.2024 another co-accused, namely, Mukhtar Ansari has been apprehended and he has confessed his guilt that he was involved in the murder of the deceased, which is apparent from the contents of the supplementary case diary. The learned counsel has further submitted that this co-accused has only taken the name of Tipu Sultan in terms of being involved in the conspiracy, therefore, Tipu Sultan also cannot be held guilty for the offence under section 302 of the

¶16

-2-

¶17

Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel has further submitted that whatever recovery of weapon was made, was from Mukhtar Ansari. Moreover, the petitioner, namely, Tipu Sultan is in custody since 22.07.2023, the petitioner, namely, Suleman Ansari @ Md. Suleman Ansari is in custody since 26.08.2023 and the petitioner, namely, Imran Ansari is in custody since 22.07.2023. Therefore, on the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioners may be granted privilege of bail.

¶18

Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application of the petitioners and has submitted that prior to the death of the deceased, there were altercations amongst the deceased, his family members and his wife. The learned counsel has further submitted that Tipu Sultan had admitted in his confession that he had engaged Mukhtar Ansari to commit the murder of the deceased in terms of Rs.4,00,000/- to be paid to Mukhtar Ansari. The learned counsel has further submitted that Rs.3,00,000/- was transferred to the account of hired Mukhtar Ansari. The learned counsel has further submitted that as per the post-mortem report, death was due to gun shot.

¶19

Having gone through the records of the case and arguments in the facts and circumstances, present petitioners, namely, Suleman Ansari @ Md. Suleman Ansari and Imran Ansari are ordered to be released on bail on executing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned ACJM, Nagar Untari, Garhwa, in connection with Nagar Untari PS Case No. 104 of 2023, subject to the conditions that (i) the petitioners will submit selfattested photocopy of their Aadhaar Cards and also submit their mobile numbers before the learned Court below which they will always keep active and will not change it during pendency of this case without prior permission of the Court (ii) the petitioners shall also remain present on each and every date of trial before the learned Court below unless dispensed with by the learned Court below and (iii) the petitioners shall report to the concerned police station on last Saturday of every month between 1:00 PM and 5:00 PM in the next twelve month, failing which their bail bonds shall be cancelled. Any exception to such attendance shall be done so after direction from the learned Court below.

¶20

So far prayer for bail of the appellant, namely, Tipu Sultan is concerned, his prayer for bail is rejected.

¶21

Let a copy of this order be delivered to the concerned Superintendent of Police.

¶22

S.B.

¶23

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)

Suleman Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suleman Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ujjwal Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vikram Kumar Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arzoo Mallick Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tipu Sultan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Imran Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vikram Ravidas Alias Vikram Das Alias Bikram Ravidas Vs the State of Jharkhand