Jharkhand High Court
Mazharul Haque vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 May, 2022
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 35 of 2020
-----------
Mazharul Haque .....Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. B.M.Tripathi, Sr. Adv.
For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P.
-----
I.A. No. 4399 of 2021
06/09.05.2022 Heard Mr. B. M. Tripathi, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Bhola
Nath Ojha, learned A.P.P.
The appellant had earlier moved this Court for grant of bail in I.A. No.1636 of 2020 which however was dismissed as not pressed.
It has been submitted by learned senior counsel for the appellant that the First Information Report was instituted on 08.10.2016 with an allegation that the brother of the informant was missing since 03.08.2016. It has been submitted that on 13.08.2016 the skeletal remains of a human being was recovered for which Burmu P.S. Sanha No. 08 of 2016 was instituted. Subsequently, after almost one year on 09.07.2017, the appellant who has been suspected on account of the call detail reports had confessed and the prosecution has tried to connect the recovery of the skeleton on 13.08.2016 to the confessional statement of the appellant. Learned senior counsel adds that the appellant is in custody since 10.07.2017. It has also been submitted that only on the basis of suspicion in absence of there being any eye-witness to the incident the appellant has been convicted.
Learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant. It appears that the recovery of the skeletal remains of a human being was made on 13.08.2016 and subsequently after about 11 months the appellant had confessed on 09.07.2017 and since the identity of the person whose skeletal remains were recovered was disclosed by the appellant, DNA Test was conducted and the skeleton was found to be that of the brother of the informant. Though the confessional statement of the appellant did not lead to any recovery but his confessional statement was sufficient to indicate the identity of the person whose skeletal remains were recovered by the Burmu Police.
In view of such facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to admit the appellant on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the appellant stands rejected at this stage.
I.A. No.4399 of 2021 stands rejected.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) (Rajesh Kumar, J) Shahid