The court rejected 2nd attempt for bail as there was sufficient evidence that the petitioner was involved in the disappearance of the victim: High Court of Patna
The petitioner was arrested under Sections 302 IPC, “Punishment for murder whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine”, section 201, “Causing disappearance of evidence of the offence, or giving false information to screen offender”, section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, “Punishment of criminal conspiracy”. The petition is in connection with Dhanaha PS Case No. 10 of 2019 dated 12.01.2019. This is the second attempt for bail which was earlier rejected by judgment dated 24.08.2020 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 15350 of 2020.
In the High Court of Judicature at Patna, this judgement was given by honourable Mr Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 15th of September 2021 in the case of Jifrul Haque Ansari @ Jafrul Ansari and others Versus the State of Bihar, [Criminal Miscellaneous No. 23410 of 2021] Mr Anil Kumar represented as the advocate for the petitioner, and Mr Anand Mohan Prasad represented the state of Bihar as the additional Public Prosecutor the proceedings of the court were held via video conference. The following are the facts of the case, the petitioner along with five others was accused of killing the nephew of the informant and further they destroyed the evidence.
The counsel representing the petitioner, held that the mobile number had not been mentioned in the FIR in which the sister of the petitioner made a call to the deceased. After investigation, the police found out the mobile number through which the calls to the deceased were made and the number does not belong to the family of the petitioner. Therefore, there was no connection from the family of the petitioner to the deceased and they cannot be accused. Further, the counsel held that this case has been falsely implicated as only after 7 days of the crime the complaint was filed and they failed to approach the police. Even though the documents annexed indicate the informant approached the police but the same appeared to be manipulated documents. The counsel further held that even the villagers of the deceased stated that the nephew of the informant died from a road accident and was also buried. Since the family had a past ligation history the case was registered. There was no independent witness who claimed that the deceased came into the petitioner’s house on a fateful day.
The additional public prosecutor was ordered by the court to obtain a report from the Superintendent of Police, Bagaha. To figure out 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. The court further directed the APP to make an enquiry throughout the village of the informant regarding the death of the nephew of the informant whether it was a road accident or otherwise.
The APP obtained a report from the Superintendent of Police which stated that the mobile number was similar to that of the accused but the SIM was registered in the name of the victim. During the enquiry, it was transpired that the accused and the victim was having a love affair and they spoke frequently. Therefore, this crime was not due to a road accident but clearly due to murder by the petitioner. While tracing the SIM, it was conceded that the victim and the petitioner were at the same place. The victim’s SIM was traceless after a point of time and therefore they were unable to recover the body.
The Honourable Court concluded that “There is sufficient indication to indicate that the petitioner may also be involved in the disappearance of the victim, who has neither been recovered nor his body found, and further, the Court also does not find any mitigating circumstances after the last order of rejection dated 24.08.2020 for granting bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the petition stands dismissed.”
Click here to read the judgment
Judgement reviewed by – A. Beryl Sugirtham