Mainool Ansari @ Mainul Ansari v. The State of Jharkhand

The State of Jharkhand ------ CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ------- … … Opposite Party For the Petitioner For the State : Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate : Mrs. Snehlika Bhagat, APP -------- Order No. 04 /Dated: 13 th July, 2022 When the matter is called out, Mr. Rahul Pandey, the learned counsel appears for the petitioner and Mrs. Snehlika Bhagat, the learned APP appears for the State. Petitioner has been made accused in connection with Kanke P.S. Case No. 226 of 2021 registered under sections 115,212,120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and section 25(1-A), 25(1-AA), 25 (1-B)a, 26, 25(6), 25(7), 25(8), 35 of the Arms Act and 17 CLA Act. The main allegation is that unknown had fired at Bablu Kumar Munda due to which his bodyguard was injured. The petitioner was therefore arrested during the investigation in the case. Mr. Rahul Pandey, the learned counsel for the petitioner has read out the self statement of the Inspector which forms the basis of the FIR and tried to make out the case that on the basis of what is in the self statement it is not the case that the petitioner was involved in the shooting of the bodyguard.

At the most, the petitioner was providing the Sumo Vehicle and was driving the said vehicle, this is only the offence that can be made out. He has further submitted that from the self statement itself it is apparent that the main persons involved would be one Afroz Ansari and one Irfan Ansari. He has also submited that Ekramul Ansari and Md. Ejaj Ansari have been granted bail in B.A. No. 2424 of 2022 vide order dated 09.03.2022 and in B.A. No. 2701 of 2022 vide order dated 25.04.2022 respectively by a coordinate Bench of this Court and the involvement of this petitioner even compared to those persons apart from Afroz Ansari and Irfan Ansari would be less. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that on the basis of what is indicated in the self statement and the cited bail orders, the -2- petitioner may be allowed the privilege of bail. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the petition for bail and pointed out to the case diary conclusions and submitted that this petitioner has accepted his role in the alleged offence and that he had also provided the Sumo Vehicle from which firing was made and that he had also drove the same.

It is further submitted that petitioner has got other criminal antecedent, therefore the petitioner does not deserve bail. Having heard both counsels, gone through the records of the case and in the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of the cited bail orders, I am inclined to release the petitioner, named above, on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Ranchi in connection with Kanke P.S Case No. 226 of 2021, subject to the condition that petitioner shall report to the concerned police station on every last Saturday of the month, between 01:00 and 05:00 p.m for one year, failing or if any adverse remarks regarding his non-appearance at the police station, his bail application shall be liable to be cancelled. Any exemption to such attendance shall be done so after direction of the learned Court below and the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date of trial before the Court below unless dispensed with by the learned Court below. Sharda/ (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)