Patna High Court - Orders
Jifrul Haque Ansari@ Jafrul Ansari ... vs The State Of Bihar on 11 August, 2021
Author: Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Bench: Ahsanuddin Amanullah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23410 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2019 Thana- DHANAHA District- West Champaran
======================================================
Jifrul Haque Ansari @ Jafrul Ansari @ Jayfirul Haque Ansari @ Jayfirul
Ansari, aged about 26 years (male), Son of Mustafa Ansari Resident of
Village- Khalwa Patti, Kathar Tola, Police Station- Dhanha, District- West
Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anand Mohan Prasad Mehta, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL ORDER
2 11-08-2021The matter has been heard via video conferencing.
2. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anand Mohan Prasad Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.
3. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Dhanaha PS Case No. 10 of 2019 dated 12.01.2019, instituted under Sections 302/201/120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
4. This is the second attempt for bail by the petitioner as earlier such prayer was rejected by judgment and order dated 24.08.2020 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 15350 of 2020.
5. The allegation against the petitioner and five others is of killing the nephew of the informant and then destroying the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23410 of 2021(2) dt.11-08-2021 2/4 evidence.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the arguments advanced in the earlier case as has been noted in judgment and order dated 24.08.2020. However, he added that the FIR does not disclose as to from which mobile number the sister of the petitioner had made a call to the deceased. It was submitted that as per the police investigation, it is alleged that the calls to the deceased was made from mobile number 8271722257, which does not belong to the family of the petitioner. Thus, learned counsel submitted that there is nothing to connect the petitioner or his family to the deceased. Further, it was submitted that the whole case has been falsely instituted which would be clear from the fact that initially after 7 days of the occurrence the complaint was filed without the informant approaching the police. It was submitted that though in the complaint, two documents are annexed which purportedly indicate that complainant had given information to the police on 03.01.2019 and 08.01.2019, but the same ex facie appears to be a manipulated document, inasmuch as, in the date on one of the petitions which has been given as 03.01.2019, it is apparent that the date was 09.01.2019 which has been overwritten as 03.01.2019. It was submitted that it would be relevant as the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23410 of 2021(2) dt.11-08-2021 3/4 date of the complaint itself is 09.01.2019 and on the same day, both those antedated documents were created to show that previously the police was informed about the incident but the same is not a fact. Further, it was submitted that as per the information available with the petitioner side, the villagers of the deceased are aware of the fact that he had died due to road accident and was also buried, but only at the instigation of one Jai Prakash Lal Shrivastava, with whom the family of the petitioner has past litigation history, this false case has been registered. It was submitted that the submission of learned counsel for the informant, as has been noted in the order dated 24.08.2020 to the effect that the independent witnesses have seen the deceased coming with the petitioner to their house on the fateful date is not correct as no independent witness has come forward to state the same.
7. Learned APP submitted that evidence has come during investigation against the petitioner. However, he submitted that with regard to the stand that the mobile number from which call was made to the deceased does not belong to any family member of the petitioner, the same has to be verified and also the fact as to whether the deceased has been buried after dying in a road accident.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23410 of 2021(2) dt.11-08-2021 4/4
8. Having regard to the aforesaid, let learned APP get a report from the Superintendent of Police, Bagaha specifically with regard to the mobile number from which the call was made on the phone of the deceased and the location of the calls as also to whom the said SIM belongs. Further, he shall also get thorough enquiry conducted at the village of the informant from independent sources with regard to whether there is indication that the deceased has been buried by the family of the deceased, including the informant, after having died in a road accident.
9. Such report be submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Bagaha through learned APP who shall place it on record latest by 10th September, 2021 and the matter be listed on 15 th September, 2021, among the top five cases.
10. Learned APP shall communicate the order to the Superintendent of Police, Bagaha for compliance.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) Anjani/-
U T