Allowed

Md. Suhail @ Suhbaril Ansari @ Suhail Ansari v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC1 Sept 2020CR. MISC./79358/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court granted bail to the petitioner in a criminal case involving alleged murder and armed assault, releasing him on personal bond during the lockdown, with a requirement to furnish monetary bonds upon restoration of normalcy.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on personal bond with direction to furnish bonds of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties within seven weeks after normalcy.

Md. Suhail @ Suhbaril Ansari @ Suhail Ansari Vs… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79358 of 2019

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-184 Year-2018 Thana- RAMPUR District- Gaya

¶3

======================================================

¶4

MD. SUHAIL @ SUHBARIL ANSARI @ SUHAIL ANSARI Son of Hafiz Ansari Resident of Mohalla- White House Compound, P.S.- Rampur, DistrictGaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

=================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the Opposite Party/s : For the informant : ===================	=================================== Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv. with Mr.Shivendra Prasad, Adv. Mr.Shyam Kumar Singh Mr. Tabish Sharfuddin, Adv. ===================================
CORAM: HONOURABL	E MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶10

6 01-09-2020

¶11

Due to COVID-19 Pandemic, the matter is being taken up by way of virtual Court proceeding.

¶12

The matter has been listed under the heading “For Orders” under the orders of Hon’ble the Chief Justice.

¶13

Supplementary affidavit is filed on behalf of the petitioner. The same be kept on record.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶15

APP for the State.

¶16

The petitioner seeks bail in a case for the offence registered under Sections 302, 307, 452, 341, 323, 506, 120(B), 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act.

¶17

Prosecution case in short, is that the while the

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79358 of 2019(6) dt.01-09-2020 2/3

¶19

informant was preparing for “ROZA”, the accused persons having armed with weapons came there and started abusing. It is further alleged that one Shahrukh assaulted the informant’s son Md. Navil Ahmad with iron rod on his head. It is also alleged that all the accused persons in furtherance thereof, assaulted the informant’s son with iron rod, hockey stick etc. as a result of which, the informant’s son sustained injury. It is alleged that in the occurrence, one son of the informant died while the other son is under treatment.

¶20

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. Charge sheet/Prosecution report in this case has already been submitted. The petitioner is in custody since 0506-2018. As per the allegation, co-accused Shahrukh is said to have given iron rod blow on the informant’s son. Thereafter, it is alleged that this petitioner also gave iron rod blow on the head of the informant’s son. From perusal of the injury report and the postmortem report, it appears that only one lacerated wound injury was found on the head of the deceased. The postmortem report and the injury report do not corroborate the allegation, made in the FIR. If the FIR is accepted to be true, then also, the fatal injury is said to have been caused by the co-accused

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79358 of 2019(6) dt.01-09-2020 3/3

¶22

namely Shahrukh. Further it has been submitted that the date of occurrence is said to be 21-05-2018 whereas the case was instituted on 25-05-2018. The delay in lodging the case has not been explained by the prosecution.

¶23

On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is named in the Complaint Case/F.I.R.

¶24

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also the lockdown, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on his personal bond to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in connection with Rampur P.S. Case No. 184 of 2018.

¶25

Once the normalcy is restored, the petitioner shall furnish bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each within a period of seven weeks to the satisfaction of the court concerned in connection with the aforesaid case.

¶26

(Sudhir Singh, J)

Md. Suhail @ Suhbaril Ansari @ Suhail Ansari v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Suhail @ Suhbaril Ansari @ Suhail Ansari v. The State of Bihar

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

Sadhu Ssahni Vs The State of Bihar

Lalmuni Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Atul Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Basant Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sahib Iqbal Vs The State of Bihar

Chitranjan Yadav Vs The State of Bihar