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.”
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 234121 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 The State of Bihar ... Petitioner s ... Opposite Party s For the Petitioner s For the State Mr. Anil Kumar Advocate Mr. Anand Mohan Prasad Mehta APP CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 15 09 2021 The 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 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 dated 24.08.2020 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 153520 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.234121 dt.15 09 2021 5. The allegation against the petitioner and five others is of killing the nephew of the informant and then destroying the 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the arguments advanced in the earlier case as has been noted in judgment dated 24.08.2020 had 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 were 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 appear to be manipulated documents inasmuch as in 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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.234121 dt.15 09 2021 as 03.01.2019. It was submitted that this would be relevant as the 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 were informed about the incident but clearly 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. On the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner the Court had asked learned APP to obtain 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. He was further directed to get Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.234121 dt.15 09 2021 a 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 his family including the informant after having died in a road accident 8. Learned APP submitted that the report has been submitted which has also been forwarded to the Court. The Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the said report “1. That by an order dated 11.08.2021 this Hon’ble Court was pleased to direct the Learned A.P.P. to get a report from the Superintendent of Police Bagaha and accordingly the present report is being submitted for kind consideration 2. That after the order of this Hon’ble Court an enquiry was directed to be carried out in the matter by the Superintendent of Police Bagaha through the Sub Divisional Police Officer Bagaha who has submitted his report dated 03.09.2021 Memo No. 1768 2021) after carrying out his 3. That as per the report Mobile No 8271722257 was used to make call on the mobile number 8788601830 used by the victim and this numberwas used by the accused Rukshana Khatoon @ Sana Khatoon for continuously contacting the victim but the SIM of 8271722257 was registered actually in the name of victimhimself. During local enquiry it has transpired that this accused and the victim were having love affair and the victim gave the SIM of above number to the accused secretly and they used to talk frequently 4. That from the CDR analysis of the mobile numbers above on these two numbers right from 27.12.2018 till 02.01.2019 there were constant talks of long duration Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.234121 dt.15 09 2021 Bashihiya Balbirpur 5. That on the date of incident i.e 02.01.2019 both the mobiles were in the same tower District location Kushinagar Uttar Pradesh where the second house of the accused Rukshana Khatoon @ Sana Khatun and her family is situated. It shows that the victim was also at Bashihiya Balbirpur Uttar Pradesh and after 19.43.47 hrs. on 02.01.2019 Mobile no 8788601830 of the victim is off and since thereafter the victim is traceless 6. That as per the report the tower location of mobile number used by the victimaccused Rukshana Khatoon @ Sana Khatoon accused Mustafa Ansari accused Jafrul Ansarithey all were at the same location on 02.01.2019 i.e. at Village: Bashihiya Banbirpur P.S Padraunia District: Kushinagar Uttar Pradesh which shows that they all were together 7. That it has also been reported that the mobile number used by the victim i.e. 8788601830 was given to him by his brother namely Sohrab Alam Bablu Ansari who worked in Mumbai and since he was not getting a SIM due to address related issue he got this number through his friend namely Hafij Sakur Ansari which was initially used by Sohrab Alam @ Bablu Ansari however upon his return from Mumbai he gave it to the victim who was since thereafter using it till his disappearance 8. That it has also been reported that till date the dead body of the victim could not be 9. That it has also been reported that it is not a case of death in accident as per the local enquiry at the village of the informant situated at Tamkuhwaha P.S. Dhanha and in this regard various villagers of the informant were contacted 10. That the petitioner is a named accused along with various others and the informant is the uncle of the victim 11. That during investigation the case has been found true under Sections 364 34 of the IPC against six accused persons including this petitioner 12. That in the above background the present report is being submitted.” Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.234121 dt.15 09 2021 9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties the Court finds 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 10. In the aforesaid background the petition stands (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J