Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 930 (JHR)

Gaffar Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

2006-07-24

D.G.R.PATNAIK, R.R.PRASAD

body2006
Order The appeal (Cr. Appeal No. 1178 of 2004) is admitted for hearing and shall be heard alongwith Cr. Appeal Nos. 1199 of 2004; 1218 of 2004; 1421 of 2004; 1422 of 2004. 2. Issue notice. 3. Perused the lower court record. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Gaffar Ansari submitted that the conviction of the appellant, Gaffar Ansari, is totally erroneous on account of the far that the victim girl was not examined and yet the trial court has placed reliance on her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr. RC. It has further been submitted that even if for some reason the victim could not be produced for recording her statement, the prosecution could have examined her on commission. It has further been submitted that there is no independent witness regarding participation of the appellant in the alleged offences. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the case of the appellant is identical to that of co-convict, Mansoor Ansari, who has been granted bail by this Court in Cr. Appeal No. 1146 of 2004 and there is no point of distinction of the case of the appellant, Gaffar Ansari from the case of the abovenamed co-accused. 5. Learned counsel adds further, that the name of two convicts had transpired in the confessional statement of the co-accused, Abbas Ansari, but the name of the appellant, Gaffar Ansari does not transpire at all. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants in the remaining appeals submits that the appellants are entitled to bail on the same ground that co-convict Mansoor Ansari was granted bail. 7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that similar prayer for bail was considered on merits on behalf of other co-convicts and the same was rejected and the case of the present appellants stand on similar footing as of those whose prayer was rejected and as such, the present appellants do not deserve to be admitted bail. 8. From the impugned judgment and the facts and circumstances, we find that the trial court has recorded its finding for the offence under Sections 376(2)(g)/34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the appellants named above. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are not inclined to enlarge the appellants, including Gaffar Ansari on bail. Accordingly, their prayer for bail is rejected.