Samiruddin Ansari @ Samir Ansari @ Md. ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 1573 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Samiruddin Ansari @ Samir Ansari @ Md. ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 August, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.1171 of 2023
                                  ------
      Samiruddin Ansari @ Samir Ansari @ Md. Samir Ansari, S/o
      Imtiyaz Ansari, R/o Village Khetko, P.O. & P.S. Nimiaghat, District
      Giridih (Jharkhand).                              ... ... Appellant
                                     Versus
      The State of Jharkhand.                         ... ... Respondent
                                  ------
            CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

: SRI PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

------

For the Appellant : Md. Ayub Ansari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl. P.P.

------

06/ 05.08.2025

I.A. No.11126 of 2024

This Interlocutory Application has been filed by the

appellant praying therein to suspend the sentence and release

him on bail during pendency of this appeal.

2. It is the second attempt of the appellant praying to

release him on bail after suspension of sentence. Earlier his

application for suspension of sentence was dismissed as

withdrawn vide order dated 02.04.2024 in I.A. No.3029 of 2024.

3. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced in

connection with Sessions Trial No.248 of 2021 arising out of

Nimiaghat P.S. Case No.49 of 2021 in the Court of learned

Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih, for offence under Section

304 B IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for

10 years.

4. Heard, learned counsel representing the appellant

and learned Spl. P.P. representing the State and have gone

through the impugned judgment, the evidence and the Trial

Court Records.

5. Opportunity was given to the State to oppose the bail,

which the State availed and opposed.

6. On perusal of the materials available on record, we

find that there is an allegation of demand of dowry. The death is

definitely within seven years of marriage and the same is

unnatural.

7. Considering the materials, and even considering the

fact that the petitioner has not even completed half of his

sentence, we are not inclined to allow this application.

8. This interlocutory application is, accordingly,

dismissed.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

(PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.)

Prashant. Cp-3