Dismissed¶20

MD Nayeem Alias MD Nayeem Ahmad v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC2 Sept 2024Cr.M.P./1872/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cancellation of bail refused; threat to informant to withdraw case alleged as vague and bald; inconsistent dates of occurrence (17.04.2022 vs 16.04.2022) in complaints to police station and SDM Ramgarh; no enquiry or investigation; no Section 155(2) CrPC 1973 application; no subsequent act in over two years; B.A. No. 15477 of 2021; M.C.A. No. 584 of 2022; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; Justice Subhash Chand; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The ground for cancellation of bail is not found sufficient and the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is accordingly dismissed. ¶20

MD Nayeem Alias MD Nayeem Ahmad Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the bail granted to opposite party no. 2, Parvez Ahmad (in B.A. No. 15477 of 2021), should be cancelled on the ground that after having got bail he, along with his aide, threatened the informant-petitioner to withdraw the case.

¶11

Court's answer

The ground for cancellation of bail is not found sufficient and the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The two complaints dated 17.04.2022 and 18.04.2022 show different dates of occurrence, undermining the credibility of the alleged threatening incident.

¶17

Key takeaways

The allegations made are general and bald against the accused and his associates.ratio¶17
As regards the alleged threatening, nothing is mentioned about facing dire consequences if the case was not withdrawn.ratio¶17
Neither enquiry was conducted on the two applications nor was any investigation conducted by the police station concerned, including after seeking permission from the Court of Magistrate concerned.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi — Cr. M. P. No. 1872 of 2022 (Subhash Chand, J.) — Petition by informant Md. Nayeem @ Md. Nayeem Ahmad seeking cancellation of bail granted to Parvez Ahmad in B.A. No. 15477 of 2021 vide order dated 30.03.2022. Alleged ground: after obtaining bail, the accused with his aide threatened the informant-petitioner to withdraw the case, reported to the police station on 17.04.2022 (Annexure-3) and complained to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ramgarh (M.C.A. No. 584 of 2022, disposed of 20.04.2022). Court found the occurrence dates inconsistent between the two complaints (17.04.2022 versus 16.04.2022), the allegations general and bald with no specifics of threatened dire consequences, no enquiry or investigation undertaken, no application under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and over two years elapsed with no subsequent act. Grounds for cancellation deemed insufficient; petition dismissed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M. P. No. 1872 of 2022

¶2

Md. Nayeem @ Md. Nayeem Ahmad, aged about 47 years, son of Late Khadim Rasool, resident of village Chitarpur, Near- Darul Motala Imambara, P.O. & P.S: Rajrappa, District-Ramgarh

¶3

..... … Petitioner

¶4

Versus The State of Jharkhand & Anr. …. …. Opp. Parties

¶5

¶6

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

¶7

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Ms. Priya Shrestha, A.P.P. For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate --------

¶8

13/2^nd September, 2024

¶9

Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 are present.

¶10

This criminal miscellaneous petition is on behalf of petitioner Md. Nayeem @ Md. Nayeem Ahmad for cancellation of bail of opposite party no. 2, namely, Parvez Ahmad who has been granted bail in B.A. No. 15477 of 2021 vide order dated 30.03.2022 by this Bench.

¶11

The ground for cancellation of bail is that after having got bail, the accused Parvez Ahmad along with his aide had threatened the informant-petitioner herein, to withdraw the case against him and to that effect the information was given on 17.04.2022 to the Police Station concerned. Thereafter, the complaint of the same was also made before the Court of learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ramgarh which was registered as M.C.A. No. 584 of 2022 and disposed of vide order dated 20.04.2022. The complaint dated 17.04.2022, which is Annexure-3 and the complaint given to the Court concerned which is Annexure-4 and the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned is at page nos. 34 and 35 of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in

¶13

¶14

regard to the said occurrence, he had informed to the Police Station concerned but no action was taken, then the complaint was given to the Court concerned where the case was pending but the court concerned also disposed of this complaint being not maintainable. Hence, there was no way to file this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition for cancellation of the bail of accused Parvez Ahmad.

¶15

Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has opposed the contentions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the allegations made in the complaint dated 17.04.2022 are vague and bald allegations and there is difference between the date of the occurrence as alleged in complaint dated 17.04.2022 and the complaint given to the Court of learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ramgarh.

¶16

Opposite Party No. 2 Parvez Ahmad, the accused has been granted bail by this Bench in B.A. No. 15477 of 2021 vide order dated 30.03.2022 on merit.

¶17

After seventeen days of granting bail, information was given by the informant to the Police Station concerned that Parvez Ahmad along with aide had been threatening him and his family to withdraw the case in this application which is Annexure-3, the date of occurrence is shown 17.04.2022. Thereafter, the complaint was given to the Court of learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ramgarh on 18.04.2022 while in paragraph no. 5 of this complaint, the date of occurrence is shown 16.04.2022, wherein the allegations are made that opposite party no. 2- Parvez Ahmad along with some miscreants had threatened him to withdraw the case. In both these complaint dated 17.04.2022 and 18.04.2022, the date of occurrence is also shown different. The allegations which is made is general and bald against the petitioner and his associates. The threatening which is being alleged to be given, nothing is mentioned to face the dire consequences if the case was not withdrawn. Neither enquiry was conducted on these two applications nor was any

¶18

¶19

investigation conducted by the police station concerned after seeking permission from the Court of Magistrate concerned. Even the petitioner has not given any application under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for investigation in this matter as alleged in the complaint dated 17.04.2022, more than two years have lapsed and there is no subsequent act on the part of the petitioner.

¶20

In view of the above, the ground for cancellation of bail is not found sufficient and, accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is hereby dismissed.

¶21

(Subhash Chand, J.)

¶22

Rashmi/-

¶23

MD Nayeem Alias MD Nayeem Ahmad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Nayeem Alias MD Nayeem Ahmad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Sabir Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nihal Singh Parihar Alias Banti Mukhi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rashid Ali Alias Rashi Hawar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Hablu Mandal Alias Ghavalu Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kamlesh Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajesh Hembrom Alias Sideshwar Hembrom Vs the State of Jharkhand