Md. Danish @ Danish @ Mohammad Danish v. The State of Jharkhand
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail refused
for bail is hereby rejected
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 302, 353
- Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 s. 11(a)(b)(d)(e)
- Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 ss. 12, 12(1), 12(2)
- Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 s. 11(1)
Judgment
CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH ----- For the Petitioners : M/s. B. M. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate For the State : M/s. P. K. Chatterjee, Spl.P.P : M/s. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P --- 07/06.03.2025 Heard the Parties. Both these bail applications arise out of same police case. Accordingly, they are being disposed of by a common order. Petitioners have been made an accused in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 220/2023, arising out of Dhurwa (T) P.S. Case No.-179/2022, Corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3092/2022 registered for offence under sections 353, 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 11(a) (b) (d) (e) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 and Section 4 (B) of Bihar Prevention and Improvement of Animals Act and Section 12 of Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005, however charges have been framed for offence punishable under Sections 353/34, 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, Sections 11 (1) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Sections 12 (1) and 12 (2) of Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005, pending in the Court of Shri Sanjeev Jha, Learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVII, Ranchi.
Bail application of the petitioners was earlier rejected by co-ordinate bench of this Court. During the intervening night of 19/20.07.2022, Dhurwa police received confidential information that a pick up van bearing registration number JH-01-EJ-7501 after breaking down the barriers of Basia, Kamdara and Torpa Police station was proceeding towards Tupudana. The said vehicle was intercepted near Tupudana police outpost. However, the driver of the vehicle ran over the vehicle over one of the police personnel Sandhya Topno who succumbed to her injuries. Later on, the vehicle turned turtle and the driver Nijam Khan was apprehended, while the owner who was present in the vehicle fled away. Several injured bovine animals were recovered from the vehicle. Learned lawyer for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner Md. Danish was not occupying the delinquent vehicle at the time of occurrence. It is alleged that this petitioner is owner of the alleged Alto car, which was escorting the delinquent vehicle.
Operative part
It was further submitted that similarly situated co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court and co-ordinate bench of this court. Learned Special P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner Sajid Ansari was present in the delinquent vehicle at the time of occurrence but he managed to escape. It was further submitted that the trial of this case is under progress and the prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses. Regard being had to the facts and circumstance of the case and considering the nature of allegation; I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner Sajid Ansari on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is hereby rejected As far as the petitioner Md. Danish @ Danish @ Mohammad Danish is concerned, I am inclined to release him on bail. Accordingly, petitioner Md. Danish @ Danish @ Mohammad Danish, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
20,000/- (Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Shri Sanjeev Jha, Learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVII, Ranchi or his successor in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 220/2023, arising out of Dhurwa (T) P.S. Case No.-179/2022, Corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3092/2022. (Ambuj Nath, J.) Saurabh uploaded
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: for bail is hereby rejected
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 302, 353; Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 — s. 11(a)(b)(d)(e); Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 — ss. 12, 12(1), 12(2); Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 — s. 11(1).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.