Posted On by &filed under High Court, Jharkhand High Court.

Jharkhand High Court
Sahud Ansari @ Saud Ansari vs State Of Jharkhand on 19 August, 2011

                              B.A. No. 4816 of 2011
                Sahud Ansari @ Saud Ansari ...  ...
                                                ...   Petitioner
                The State of Jharkhand      ... ... ... Opposite Party

                      For the Petitioner          : Mr. Devesh Krishna, Advocate
                      For the State               : Mr. T. Kabiraj, A. P. P.


Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.

The petitioner is an accused in a case for the offence
registered under Sections 302, 380/34 of the Indian Penal Code
and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court
and petitioner is in custody since January 2009 i.e. more than two
and half years. It is also contended that the petitioner is not
named in the F.I.R. and another co-accused, namely, Masir Ansari
@ Masir Mian, who is named in the F.I.R. has already been granted
bail by another Bench of this Court in B.A. No. 8997 of 2010 vide
order dated 07.04.2011.

A report was called from the court concerned
regarding the stage of the trial. Report has come, which shows
that seven witnesses have already been examined by the
prosecution and four witnesses are still to be examined.

From the impugned order, I find that seven witnesses
mentioned in the charge sheet have been examined, but all of
them have been declared hostile except P.W.6.

Considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody
for more than two and half years and considering all these aspects
as stated above, petitioner, above named, is directed to be
released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten
thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction
of District & Sessions Judge, Garhwa in connection with Ranka P.S.
Case No. 93 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. No. 1060 of 2008 (S.T.
No. 45 of 2009, 172 of 2009), subject to the condition that the
petitioner will remain physically present before the trial Court on
each and every date of the trial till conclusion of the trial and one
of the bailors will be his close relative and another will be of local
resident having immovable property within the jurisdiction of the
trial court.

(Jaya Roy, J.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

107 queries in 0.196 seconds.