Nisar Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

07/04.08.2025 Heard Mr. Awanish Ranjan Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, learned A.P.P. and Mr. Ranjan Kumar, learned counsel for the Informant-Respondent No. 2.

¶16

2. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the order dated 24.06.2024, passed in Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 987 of 2024, by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribag, by which prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the appellant, namely Nisar Ansari has been rejected in connection with Chalkusa P.S. Case No. 12 of 2023, instituted for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 279, 353, 504, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, pending in the Court of learned A.D.J.-VI, Hazaribagh .

¶17

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Order dated 24.06.2024, passed by the learned A.D.J.-VI, Hazaribagh, by which the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant has been rejected, is

1

Neutral Citation No.

( 2025:JHHC:26632 )

illegal and not sustainable in law. It is submitted that the appellant is innocent and has not committed any offence. It is submitted that from perusal of F.I.R. neither offence under Section 353 of I.P.C. nor under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are made out against the appellant. It is submitted that from bare perusal of Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, it is evident that the same is not applicable on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. It is submitted that the documents furnished by the Informant and enclosed with the Fardbayan are manufactured documents. It is submitted that the appellant is the Mukhiya and he has opposed the illegal gratification demanded by the Junior Engineer from time to time from the local people and who were annoyed with this Informant. It is submitted that as a matter of fact, no occurrence had taken place and the allegation that the appellant has tried to kill the Informant is also not correct. It is submitted that the appellant, being the Mukhiya of Panchayat, has approved a scheme of construction of ‘Dova’ to one Afroz Ansari on the same day and from whom the Informant was demanding illegal gratification and for which the appellant impressed upon the Informant to stop such illegal work, failing which he will be compelled to report the matter to the concerned authorities or Anti-Corruption Bureau. It is submitted that the appellant is Mukhiya and has many responsibilities and the appellant will cooperate with the investigation and hence, the appellant may be granted anticipatory bail.

2

Neutral Citation No.

( 2025:JHHC:26632 )

4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is submitted that there is direct allegation against the appellant for abusing the Informant-Respondent No.2 in filthy languages in the name of mother and sister and also for assaulting him. It is submitted that the Informant in his subsequent statement has also supported the allegation against the appellant and hence the prayer for anticipatory bail may be rejected.

¶26

5. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2Informant, after adopting the submission of the learned A.P.P., has further submitted that the appellant had also threatened the Informant of dire consequences by abusing him in the name of his family members. It is further submitted that the informant has been insulted in public view and his life has been saved by Awdhesh Chowdhary and Abdul Gaffar and he had fallen into the ditch. It is submitted that the Informant was admitted to Government Hospital, Chaskula and has enclosed the photocopy of the related documents along with the F.I.R. and hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant may be rejected.

¶27

6. Perused the F.I.R., Case Diary and considered the submission of both sides.

¶28

7. It appears that the appellant is named in the F.I.R.

¶29

8. On perusal of records, it appears that the appellant, after alighting from the car, is said to have assaulted the Informant, who is a Junior Engineer, by fists and legs and abused him in the name of his caste and abused him in the name of his mother and sister.

¶30

3

¶31

Neutral Citation No.

¶32

9. It transpires that the Informant during his subsequent statement at Paragraph 7 of the Case Diary has supported the prosecution case and the witnesses namely Awdhesh Chowdhary, Abdul Mati, whose statements are recorded at Para 8 and 9 of the Case Diary have also supported the prosecution case.

¶33

10. So far the applicability of Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is concerned, the same can be seen at an appropriate stage of trial and this Court refrains itself from giving any observation.

¶34

11. On perusal of Case Diary, it appears that the Informant has sustained injuries at the hands of the Appellant.

¶35

12. Considering the above facts, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Appellant at this stage and hence, prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant is rejected.

¶36

13. The order dated 24.06.2024, passed in Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 987 of 2024, by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribag is affirmed.

¶37

14. The Interim stay granted by the Coordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi) of this Court vide order dated 29.10.2024 and continued vide order dated 05.12.2024, 05.02.2025 stands vacated.

¶38

15. Thus, this Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 698 of 2024 is, hereby dismissed.

¶39

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

¶40

s.m.

¶41

4

Nisar Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nisar Ansari 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

M/S Tata Steel Ltd. Thr. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jha, Head-Hrm (Legal and Rehabilitation) Tata Steel Ltd. Vs the State of Jharkhand Thr the Secretary, Dept. of Labour, Employment, Training N Skill Development

MD Sharifuddin Ansari Alias Sharifuddin Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajendra Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Etwari Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Ram Nath Gupta Alias Ram Nath Sah Vs State of Jharkhand