Sahil Ansari @ Thala, aged about 21 years, son of Sarif Ansari, resident of v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.1647 of 2023 ----- Sahil Ansari @ Thala, aged about 21 years, son of Sarif Ansari, resident of 03, Upar Tola, Kalabadar, P.O. and P.s. – Sakevi Para, District-Dumka. … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent ------- CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------- For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P. Order No. 06/Dated 13th February, 2024 ------ 1. The instant appeal under section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has been directed against the order dated 04.08.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj in B.P. No.272 of 2023 whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the appellant in connection with Barhait P.S. Case No. 85 of 2022 registered for the offence under Sections 370, 371, 302, 201, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, has been rejected. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Chandan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that it is a case where the appellant has falsely been implicated even though he is not named in the F.I.R. 3. It has been submitted that the name of the appellant has come in the instant case only on the basis of the confessional statement of co-accused Arbaz Alam and 2 save and except the confessional statement, nothing has come against the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant, on the basis of the aforesaid ground, has submitted that it is a fit case to interfere with the impugned order so that the appellant may come out from the judicial custody. 5. While on the other hand, Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State of Jharkhand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by defending the impugned order. 6. It has been submitted that the learned court by taking into consideration the various paragraphs of the case diary has rejected the prayer for bail taking into consideration the gravity of offence of trafficking of a girl and subsequent killing. 7. Learned State counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that if the learned court has taken the aforesaid fact into consideration while rejecting the prayer for bail of the appellant, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned court while considering the prayer for bail. 3 9. The submission has been made that only on the basis of the confessional statement the appellant has been implicated in the instant case. 10. This Court, in order to appreciate the aforesaid argument, has gone into the reason for rejection of prayer for regular bail as available in the impugned order. 11. It is evident therefrom that the learned court by taking into consideration the various paragraphs, i.e., paragraph 39 and 40 which contains the statement of independent witnesses wherein it has been disclosed that Arbaz used to bring unknown girls and used to talk with different girls and also used to introduce with girls. Reference of paragraph 73 has also been made carries the statement of Sanchita Besra. She told that she was also trapped by Arbaz but anyhow she managed to flee away from his clutches. Paragraph 94 contains the confessional statement of the appellant Sahil Ansari @ Thala, who has confessed his guilt and disclosed the whole episode of murder of victim. He has also disclosed that Priyanka had given blow of hammer on the head from behind of deceased, resulting her head started bleeding and she fell down on the ground. Thereafter, Mislata came and gagged her mouth and pressed her neck. Then this appellant tied her hands and legs. 4 12. It has also been disclosed therein that Thala (appellant) and Arbaz Alam started assaulting her with belt, fists and kick, resulting in her death in a short while. Thereafter they all decided to take Shushila’s dead body to a lonely place and burn it. Thala (appellant) was sent to petrol pump for bringing petrol for burning the dead body. All persons wrapped the dead body in sheet and kept it in Kajal’s house, loaded the dead body on TVS motorcycle and as per instruction of Mislata and Arbaz, Priyanka and Thala were sent to dispose of the dead body at Bhugtandih and after reaching there, seeing the lonely place, the dead body was brought down on the road side. Within a short time, Mislata and Arbaz reached at Bhugtandih with motorcycle along with all belongings and bags of Shushila, where all the four persons sprinkled petrol on Shushila’s dead body and all her belongings and set them on fire and returned to the house of Kajal with Mobile of Shushila, where Thala (appellant) parked the motorcycle and went to his house. 13. It is, thus, evident from going through all these paragraphs that the appellant was all along there with other co- accused persons either in assaulting the victim or disposing of the dead body of the victim. 14. The learned court while considering the prayer for regular bail has taken into consideration these paragraphs. 5 15. The appellant, while making ground to interfere, has not averred that any of the statements, as per the various paragraphs of the case diary, are contrary to the record. 16. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the reference of the statements made in the various paragraphs of the case diary has also not been reverted, as would be evident from the pleading made in the appeal. 17. This Court, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, based upon the materials surfaced in course of investigation, as recorded by the prosecuting agency in the case diary, is of the view that it cannot be said that the reason for denial of the prayer for bail by the learned court suffers from any erroneous finding. 18. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 04.08.2023 passed in B.P. No.272 of 2023 in connection with Barhait P.S. Case No. 85 of 2022. 19. Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Birendra/