Md. Tabrej Alias Md. Tabrej Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

2026:JHHC:7877

¶2

INTHE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

B.A. No. 1481 of 2026

¶4

---------

¶5

Md. Tabrej @ Md. Tabrej Ansari, aged about 40 years, S/o Abdul Aziz @ Md. Aziz, Resident of – Sahil Chowk, Bari Bazar, P.O.Chaibasa, P.S. – Sadar Chaibasa, District – West Singhbhum.

¶6

Sheikh Jahiruddin @ Sk. Jahiruddin, aged about 46 years, S/o Sk. Jalaluddin, Resident of Moh. – Pulhatu, P.O.- Chaibasa, P.S. – Sadar Chaibasa, District – West Singhbhum.

¶7

… Petitioners

¶8

Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party --------CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶9

----------

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, Advocate ----------

¶11

02/Dated: 18^th March, 2026

¶12

The instant application has been filed under Sections483 & 484 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of bail in connection with Chaibasa Mufassil P.S. Case No. 111 of 2025 registered under Sections316(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 111 & 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 pending in the court of learned CJM, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa.

¶13

It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that merely on the basis of the false allegation, the petitioner has been implicated in the present case.

¶14

It has been submitted that petitioners have never entered in any rent agreement with informant and the informant has not produced any rent agreement for his said tractor.

¶15

Page | 1

¶16

2026:JHHC:7877

¶17

By taking the ground of parity, it has been submitted that in similar case i.e. being Majhgaon Police Station case no. 18 of 2025 which is arise out of the same transaction the petitioner no.1, Md. Tabrej @ Md. Tabrej Ansari has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 24.02.2026 passed in B.A. No. 11498 OF 2025 by coordinate Bench of this Court, therefore the petitioners is also eligible for bail in the instant case.

¶18

Further, submission has also been made that the petitioners are languishing in judicial custody since 22.07.2025, as such, the present petitioners may be enlarged on bail.

¶19

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the opposite party-State although has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by contending that if the nature, gravity and seriousness of the offence alleged against the accused persons / petitioners will be taken on record in entirety, it would be evident that the accused persons / petitioners are working in connivance with each other in dealing with tractors and they are involved in hiring the tractors from the people of particular area on rent and dealing with tractor inappropriately and even selling their parts thereby causing loss to their owners, thus prayed, that the accused persons / petitioners do not deserve to be enlarged on bail at the present stage.

¶20

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶21

Page | 2

¶22

2026:JHHC:7877

¶23

The issue of parity has been raised herein by the learned counsel for the petitioners by taking the plea that in similar case i.e. being Majhgaon Police Station case no. 18 of 2025 which is arise out of the same transaction the petitioner no.1, Md. Tabrej @ Md. Tabrej Ansari has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 24.02.2026 passed in B.A. No. 11498 OF 2025 by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, therefore the petitioners is also eligible for bail in the instant case.

¶24

In the aforesaid context it needs to refer herein that this Court is conscious of the settled position of law that the principle of parity is to be applied if the case on fact is exactly similar then only the principle of parity in the matter of passing order is to be passed but if there is difference in between the facts then the principle of parity is not to be applied. But it is equally settled position of law that there cannot be any negative equality, meaning thereby, that if a co-accused person has been granted bail without consideration of the factual aspect or on the ground said to be not proper, then, merely because the co-accused person has been directed to be released on bail, the same will not attract the principle of parity on the principle that Article 14 envisages positive equality and not negative equality, reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tarun Kumar Vs. Assistant Director

¶25

Page | 3

¶26

2026:JHHC:7877

¶27

Directorate of Enforcement (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1486 . For

¶28

ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:

¶29

"19. It is axiomatic that the principle of parity is based on the guarantee of positive equality before law enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. However, if any illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals, or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing similar wrong order. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate the illegality or irregularity. If there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people by any authority or by the court, without legal basis or justification, other persons could not claim as a matter of right the benefit on the basis of such wrong decision."

¶30

It is further settled connotation of law that Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail and by only simple saying that another accused has been granted bail is not sufficient to determine whether a case for grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established.

¶31

Further, it requires to refer herein another settled position of law that Grant of bail though being a discretionary order, but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course and, thus, order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Therefore, prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard

¶32

Page | 4

¶33

2026:JHHC:7877

¶34

to the vital facts of the case and, thus, serious nature of accusations and facts having a bearing in the case cannot be ignored.

¶35

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P. and Ors. AIR 2022 SC 2514 has observed that the importance of assigning reasoning for grant or denial of bail can never be undermined. There is prima facie need to indicate reasons particularly in cases of grant or denial of bail where the accused is charged with a serious offence. The sound reasoning in a particular case is a reassurance that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker after considering all the relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

¶36

In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law this Court has gone through the order dated 24.02.2026 passed in B.A. No. 11498 OF 2025 and has found that the Co-ordinate Bench while considering the prayer for bail of petitioner has taken into consideration that there is no rent agreement between the informant of the said case and the petitioner no.1 namely Md. Tabrej @ Md. Tabrej Ansari and has allowed the prayer for bail.

¶37

This Court has also gone through the order of session Court dated 19.09.2025 as well as FIR available on record, wherefrom it is evident that the accused persons / petitioners are working in connivance with each other in dealing with tractors and they are involved in hiring the tractors from the people of particular area on rent and dealing with tractor inappropriately and even selling their parts thereby causing loss to their owners. It is further evident that

¶38

Page | 5

¶39

2026:JHHC:7877

¶40

Md Tabrez @ Raju Ansari @ Aslam in his confessional statement recorded in para 56 of the case diary has confessed his guilt that he along with other co-accused persons to be involved in the occurrence of selling the tractors of different people in connivance with other co-accused persons.

¶41

Further from the FIR, prima-facie it appears that the accused / petitioners are named in the FIR and he along with other coaccused persons were acting as syndicate in order to cheat the people of the particular area and they have taken the tractor of people of particular area on rent and sold the tractors and even sold the part of the said tractor, therefore taking into consideration the modus-operandi of the petitioner this Court is of the considered view that present application is not fit to be allowed.

¶42

Accordingly, the instant bail application stands rejected.

¶43

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶44

18^th March, 2026 Samarth

¶45

Page | 6

Md. Tabrej Alias Md. Tabrej Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Tabrej Alias Md. Tabrej Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jogendra Tiwari Alias Yogendra Tiwari Vs State through Enforcement Directorate ,Ranchi through Additional Director

M/S Baidynath Enterprises through Its Authorised Representative Jogendra Tiwari Vs State through Enforcement Directorate Ranchi through Additional Director

Ms Prashant Traders, through Its Representative Jogendra Tiwari Vs the State through Enforcement Directorate Ranchi through Additional Director

Birendra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gopi Velu Alias Velu Gopi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Md. Saddam Hussain Alias Saddam Hussain Vs the State of Jharkhand