Md. Waris @ Gulam Waris Aged About -23 vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 April, 2025

Jharkhand High Court

Md. Waris @ Gulam Waris Aged About -23 vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 April, 2025

                                                               2025:JHHC:11264



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     A.B.A. No.1733 of 2025
                              ------

1. Md. Waris @ Gulam Waris aged about -23, S/o – Nashir Uddin,
Resident of Village – Bhatuatand, P.O. – Khorimahua, P.S. –
Dhanwar, District – Giridih (825412), Jharkhand.

2. Nasir Uddin @ Nasiruddin @ Md. Nasiruddin aged about – 58
years, S/o Mathura Miya, Resident of village – Bhatuatand, P.O. –
Khorimahua, P.S. – Dhanwar, District – Giridih (825412),
Jharkhand.

                                             ....   .... ....     Petitioners
                                 Versus
         The State of Jharkhand
                                             ....   .... ....Opposite Party
                                       ------

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

——

For the Petitioners : Mr. Rahul Dev, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, Addl. P.P

——

Order No.04/Dated- 11.04.2025
Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Apprehending their arrest in connection with Dhanwar P.S. Case
No. 168 of 2023 instituted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324,
325, 307, 354, 385, 379, 448, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, the
petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory
bail.

3. As per FIR, allegation is that the scuffle has broken in a sudden
manner between the parties due to construction over the disputed land,
which was under the proceeding of Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. It is
further alleged that when the informant went to inquire about the same,
the petitioners along with others inflicted iron rod blows upon the head
of the informant and caused her grievous head injuries and blood
started oozing out. When the informant’s husband came to rescue her,
one Akbar Ansari hit on the mouth of her husband as a result of which
his six front teeth were got broken. When Mayuddin Ansari came to
save, Nasruddin attacked him with a sword due to which Mayuddin’s
forehead got cut and Tausif Ansari attacked on the left shoulder due to
which Mayuddin’s shoulder bone also got broke. Other co-accused
namely Parijan Miyan inflicted a tangi blow on the forehead of Hasina
Khatoon due to which injury was caused on her forehead. It is further
2025:JHHC:11264

alleged that Akbar Ansari and Waris Ansari outraged the modesty of
the informant by making her half naked. It is further alleged that Sagir
Ansari snatched silver chain from the informant’s neck and gave to
Tazmul Ansari.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence at all rather
they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted
that this is second anticipatory bail application of the petitioners and
earlier anticipatory bail application being A.B.A. No.9826 of 2023 was
rejected on merits by this Court and petitioner has renewed his prayer
for anticipatory bail again. It is further submitted that now the
compromise has been entered into between the informant and other co-
accused Parijan Miyan and said Parijan Miyan has also been acquitted
after facing the trial. Petitioners undertake to cooperate with the
investigation of the case and will also be abide by all terms and
conditions imposed by this Court in the matter of granting anticipatory
bail. Hence, the petitioners may be extended the privilege of
anticipatory bail.

5. On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P appearing for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners
and submitted that earlier anticipatory bail application has been
rejected on merits. The grounds taken by learned counsel for the
petitioners, furnish no new and fresh ground for entertaining the
second anticipatory bail application which is fit to be dismissed. Hence,
petitioners may not be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the points of argument of learned counsel for the
petitioners, it appears that no fresh and reasonable ground has been
taken to re-entertain the prayer for second anticipatory bail application
of the petitioners. Therefore, the prayer of second anticipatory bail of
the petitioners is rejected.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Sachin