Babloo Ansari @ Rizavi Ansari vs State Of Jharkhand

The application has been filed with minor defect i.e. typed copy of page no. 12 may be given with certified to be true. As such, the same is hereby ignored.

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Nilesh Kumar and learned counsel for the State Mr. Suchendra Prasad, Additional Public Prosecutor.

Petitioner namely, Babloo Ansari @ Rizavi Ansari has prayed for grant of regular bail in connection with Patratu P.S. Case No. 10/2020 registered for the offence under Sections 386, 387, 379, 506/34 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the F.I.R. has been lodged after delay of 02 days as the date of alleged occurrence is 15.01.2020, but the F.I.R. has been lodged on 17.01.2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the bonafide land dispute with regard to the possession, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case by the informant Hemant Kumar, who is himself a criminal and presently languishing in jail custody in a criminal case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that with regard to the possession of land, petitioner has entered into an agreement, which has been brought on record as Annexure-2, at page-13 of the brief, as such, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail on any conditions imposed by this Court as petitioner is in custody since 25.01.2020.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that nothing incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner, rather on a vague allegation alleged by the interested persons with whom the petitioner has land dispute, the petitioner is in custody.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that such cases of ransom are dominating in the district of Ramgarh because of the person like petitioner. As such, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail as he has entered into an agreement in the year 2018, but pursuant thereto, no sale deed has been executed and as per the agreement the period has already been lapsed, as such, it cannot be construed as bonafide land dispute.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of materials brought on record, since the petitioner has shown some documents disclosing land dispute between the parties, which has been brought on record as Annexure-2 and there is inordinate delay of 02 days in filing the case, as such, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail.

The petitioner shall be released on personal bond of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) in connection with Patratu P.S. Case No. 10/2020, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh, as country is presently passing through a pandemic disease (COVID-19), but after the lock down period is over, the petitioner shall furnish two bailors / sureties of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each within a period of 30 days before the learned trial court.

The petitioner shall also cooperate the Investigating Officer as well as the trial court in disposal of the criminal case. He shall appear personally before the trial court on each and every date fixed, any default in appearance, the trial court is at liberty to cancel his bail bonds.

The Jail Authority shall release the petitioner only after his medical check-up.

The Civil Surgeon, Ramgarh is directed to medically examine the petitioner and if requires, petitioner shall be taken for quarantine, but if no such requirement is there, he shall be released on personal bond of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) with aforesaid conditions by the trial court.

It is made clear that if any case is further instituted against the petitioner after his release, the State authority is at liberty to file application for cancellation of his bail bonds.

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.