Allowed

MD Firoj Ansari Alias MD Firoj v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 Sept 2024B.A./6811/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants bail to the petitioner accused under the Arms Act. The court noted no independent witness in the seizure memo and limited criminal antecedents regarding a property dispute. Bail is granted with a bond of Rs. 20,000 and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail by furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court.

MD Firoj Ansari Alias MD Firoj Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B.A. No. 6811 of 2024

¶3

Md. Firoj Ansari @ Md. Firoj, aged about 40 years, son of Late Azim Mian, resident of Village Pawarchak, P.O. Nawadih, P.S Budhai, District Deoghar, Jharkhand. ...... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand …. ….Opp.Party

¶6

------ CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

¶7

------For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, APP

¶8

¶9

Order No.04 /Dated: 5^th September, 2024

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

¶11

This bail application has been filed on behalf of Md. Firoj Ansari @ Md. Firoj with a prayer to release on bail in connection with Budhai P.S. Case No. 37 of 2024, registered under Sections 25(1-B) (a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, pending before the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur, District Deoghar.

¶12

The FIR of this case was lodged against the two named accused, namely, Md. Shamim Ansari and Md. Firoz Ansari. From the possession of co-accused Md. Shamim Ansari, one country made pistol and six live cartridges are alleged to have been recovered while from the possession of the petitioner, three live cartridges are alleged to have been recovered.

¶13

From the very perusal of the seizure memo, it is found that there is no independent witness of the public of the seizure memo. The petitioner has been languishing in jail since 29.04.2024. So far as the criminal antecedent is concerned, the supplementary-affidavit has been filed on behalf of petitioner in which it is stated that whatever criminal antecedent he has, that is in regard to the property dispute.

¶14

In view of the above, the bail application of the petitioner/applicant is hereby allowed. Let the petitioner/applicant be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned in the aforesaid case.

¶15

(Subhash Chand, J.)

¶16

Vedanti/-

¶17

MD Firoj Ansari Alias MD Firoj v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Firoj Ansari Alias MD Firoj 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

Arun Kumar Gorai Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dayanand Upadhyay Alias Dayanand Upadhayay Vs State of Jharkhand

Amit Kumar Tudu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Fulwa Devi Alias Fulwi Devi Vs State of Jharkhand

Sachin Kumar Alias Sachin Kumar Shaw Vs State of Jharkhand

Mithun Munda Alias Chhotan Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand