The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 233 of 2023 Mustakim Ansari 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sushma Kumari ------ Versus ----- … ... Appellant … … Respondents
Legal Reasoning
released on bail by this Court in as much as there are ample incriminating materials against this appellant who is said to be father-in-law of the deceased Rebika Paharin with whom the son of the appellant (Dildar Ansari) had married and when the deceased did not change her religion then it is alleged that this appellant and co- accused persons killed the deceased brutally as evident from paras- 6, 7, 16,25, 43, 44, 45, 223, 226 201 and 78 of the case diary along with post-mortem report, DNA Test report of FSL and seizure lists where several incriminating articles are said to have been recovered, such as 18 body parts of deceased, blood stained cloths of the deceased and co-accused persons, cluster of hairs of the deceased etc. and from the confessional statements of appellant and co-accused persons vide paras -34, 39, 46, 50, 54, 58, 69, and 72 of the case diary. 11. Further it has also been pointed out that the co-accused persons who have been granted bail by this Court were children (sons and daughter of this appellant) of appellant, who is said to be head of the family and “Sardar” of their community and as such, the case of co-accused persons granted bail by this Court stand on complete different footing. 12. Accordingly, in the light of the submissions of the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State, prayer of the appellant to release him on bail is rejected and the order dated 22.02.2023 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 115 of 2023 by the Court of learned Special Judge (S.C. / S.T. Court), Sahibganj, in connection with S.C. / S.T. Case No. 11 of 2023, arising out of Borio P.S. Case No. 320 of 2022, is hereby confirmed. D.S./J.Minj (Navneet Kumar, J.)
Arguments
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR -------- For the Appellant For the State : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P. -------- Order No. 05 / Dated: 18th July, 2023 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 2. This criminal appeal is directed against the order dated 22.02.2023 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 115 of 2023 by the Court of learned Special Judge (S.C. / S.T. Court), Sahibganj, in connection with S.C. / S.T. Case No. 11 of 2023, arising out of Borio P.S. Case No. 320 of 2022, for the offence registered under Sections 302, 201, 120(B) & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C. / S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby the regular bail petition filed by the appellant has been rejected and the case is presently pending in the Court of learned Special Judge (S.C. / S.T. Court), Sahibganj. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the gist of the allegations as set out in the F.I.R. against this appellant is that this appellant alongwith co-accused persons has committed murder of the deceased Rebika Paharin who is said to be the second wife of the co-accused Dildar Ansari who is the son of the appellant. 4. It has further been submitted that the appellant has not been named in the F.I.R. and it is a case of the prosecution that the deceased was the wife of the son of the appellant and the entire allegations, if any, are against the co-accused persons, namely, Dildar Ansari (son of the appellant), Mariam Nisha (wife of the appellant), Sareja Khatoon( daughter-in-law of the appellant), Mainul Ansari (Sala of the appellant), Jarina Khatoon, Mainul Hak Momin, Sharbano Khatoon, Salim Ansari and Mustkim Ansari. -2- Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 233 of 2023 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has further submitted that the co-accused persons namely; Amir Hussain, Mahtab Ansari and Gulera Khatoon have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 220 of 2023 and the case of the appellant also stands on the similar footing and nothing has been recovered on the basis of the confessional statement of this appellant. 6. It has been pointed out that this appellant is not named in the F.I.R. and the only incriminating material against the appellant is his confessional statement and this appellant is in jail since 19.12.2022 and therefore, he deserves to be enlarged on bail. 7. On the other hand the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted that it is a case of cold blooded murder of a tribal woman who is said to be the second wife of the co-accused Dildar Ansari (son of the appellant) and this appellant is the father of Dildar Ansari and being the head of the family this appellant has been pressurising the deceased to convert her religion because this appellant was the Sardar of the community. 8. Further it has been pointed out by the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State that this appellant being the head of the family had conspired alongwith his son and the co-accused persons namely: Dildar Ansari (son of the appellant), Mariam Nisha (wife of the appellant), Sareja Khatoon (daughter-in-law of the appellant), Mainul Ansari (brother-in-law of the appellant), Jarina Khatoon, Mainul Hak Momin, Sahbano Khatoon, Salim Ansari and Mustkim Ansari to kill the deceased who was a tribal woman belonging to aboriginal community and therefore, it is submitted that this appellant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 9. Further, it has also been pointed out by the learned A.P.P. that the confessional statement of the accused persons have been recorded in this case including this appellant and on the basis of the confessional statement of the co- accused persons several incriminating articles have been recovered and this appellant is said to be the Sardar and head of the family and he alongwith his family members are involved in the commission of the offence and therefore, it is not conducive to enlarge the appellant on bail at this stage of the case. -3- Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 233 of 2023 10. Further it has also been pointed out by the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the state that the case of this appellant stands on different footing from the co-accused Amir Hussain, Mahtab Ansari and Gulera Khatoon who have been