Jharkhand High Court
Md. Israfil @ Md. Ishrafil @ Guddu vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 5 March, 2021
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 9416 of 2020
----
Md. Israfil @ Md. Ishrafil @ Guddu @ Md. Ishrafil Sheikh ... Petitioner
-versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailendra Jit, Advocate
For the State: Mr. P.K. Appu, A.P.P.
----
6/ 05.03.2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for
the State through Video Conferencing. The lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding which has been held through video conferencing today at 11.00 a.m.. They have no complain with respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.
Petitioner is an accused for allegedly committing an offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 326, 307, 302, 353, 333, 323, 324, 379, 224, 225, 427, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act, Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act, in connection with Giridih Muffasil Police Station Case No. 290 of 2012 (G.R. No.2693 of 2012) corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 118 of 2019, now pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge III, Giridih.
Prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected on 19.12.2018. Petitioner fled from the custody in the year 2012. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was an attack on the police van and some of the prisoners died and some naxalites fled. Due to fear, the petitioner also had fled. He submits that now the petitioner is in custody and he is entitled to be released.
The glaring aspect in this case is that attack on police van had taken place on 2012. On a spur of moment if it is taken to be true that because of the attack the petitioner had fled, then to show his bonafide, he ought to have surrendered before the Court below immediately thereafter, which the petitioner did not do and kept on evading and he was remanded in another case only on 19.01.2018. This clearly shows that the intention of the petitioner was to flee from the police custody.
In view of the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner, abovenamed, in -: 2 :- connection with Giridih Muffasil Police Station Case No. 290 of 2012 (G.R. No.2693 of 2012) corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 118 of 2019, now pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge III, Giridih, is hereby rejected.
This application stands dismissed.
(Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-03