Jharkhand High Court
Muskan Khatoon @ Mustari Khatoon vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 September, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 421 of 2025
Muskan Khatoon @ Mustari Khatoon, aged about 23 years, Daughter
of Raju Sheikh, resident of Hirna, P.O. & P.S. - Deoghar Town,
District - Deoghar.
..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
WITH
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 267 of 2025
Subhas Chandra Das, aged about 25 years, son of Shiv Charan Das,
resident of Kenmankathi, P.O. & P.S. - Jasidih, District - Deoghar,
Jharkhand.
..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
WITH
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 469 of 2025
Shubhum Kumar Singh @ Shivam Kumar Singh @ Shivam @
Shbham Singh, aged about 23 years, Son of Vijay Singh @ Ajay
Kumar Singh, resident of Near Pagla Baba Ashram, P.O. & P.S. -
Jasidih, District - Deoghar.
..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
WITH
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 500 of 2025
Devanand Ishar, aged about 20 years, son of Rajkumar Ishar @ Raj
Kumar Iswar, resident of Simariya Pathriya, P.O. and P.S. -
Pathargawana, District - Godda, Jharkhand.
..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
WITH
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 533 of 2025
Md. Ajmal Ansari @ Md. Ajmen Ansari, aged about 26years, son of
Md. Rajak Mian, resident of Village - Gosaidih, P.O. & P.S. - Jasidih,
District - Deoghar.
..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate.
[In Cr.A.(DB) No. 421/25, 469/25]
Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate.
[In Cr.A.(DB) No. 267/25, 500/25, 533/25]
For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
[In Cr.A.(DB) No. 421/25, 469/25, 267/25]
Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P.
[In Cr.A.(DB) No. 500/25, 533/25]
For the Informant : Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Advocate.
Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo, Advocate.
[In all cases]
---------
th
Order No. 06/Dated: 10 September, 2025
I.A. No. 7732/2025 in Cr.A.(DB) No. 421/2025,
I.A. No. 8256/2025 in Cr.A.(DB) No. 267/2025,
I.A. No. 7733/2025 in Cr.A.(DB) No. 469/2025,
I.A. No. 9857/2025 in Cr.A.(DB) No. 500/2025 &
I.A. No. 8301/2025 in Cr.A.(DB) No. 533/2025.
1. Heard Mr. Ankit Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants in
Cr. A. (DB) No. 421/2025 and Cr. A. (DB) No. 469/2025; Mr. Arvind
Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellants in Cr. A. (DB)
No. 267/2025, Cr. A. (DB) No. 500/2025 and Cr. A. (DB) No.
533/2025; and Mrs. Vandana Bharti and Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan,
learned A.P.Ps. as well as Mr. Jitendra S. Singh and Mr. Sudhansu
Kumar Deo, learned counsel for the informant.
2. All these interlocutory applications have been preferred by the
respective appellants for grant of bail to them during the pendency of
these appeals.
3. The appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable
under Sections 302/34, 201/34, 120 (B) of the I.P.C. and have been
sentenced to undergo R.I. for life along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each
for the offence under Section 302/120B of the I.P.C.
4. It has been alleged that the son of the informant had gone to
meet his grandmother at Gidhni. On 08.08.2020, a call was received
on the mobile of the informant, in which a ransom of Rs. 1.00 crore
was demanded.
5. It has been submitted by Mr. Ankit Kumar, learned counsel for
the appellants in Cr. A. (DB) No. 421/2025 and Cr. A. (DB) No.
469/2025 that the appellants have been convicted only on the basis of
suspicion. It has been submitted that the confessional statements of
two of the co-convicts namely, Subhas Chandra Das and Saroj Das
were recorded after the recovery of dead body of the son of the
informant. It has further been submitted that there are no eye
witnesses to the occurrence and only on the basis of the confessional
statements as well as the call detail report, the appellants have been
convicted.
6. Similar submission has been advanced by Mr. Arvind Kumar
Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in rest of the
cases, though he has stressed much on Exhibit-7, which is
confessional statement of Subhas Chandra Das, who is appellant in
Cr.A.(DB) No. 267/2025 while submitting that though there is
tampering in the confessional statement, but even it is accepted, it
would transpire that the confessional statement was recorded on
11.08.2020 at 4:35 hours while the dead body was recovered on
10.08.2020 at mid night and the inquest report was prepared in the
Sadar Hospital on 11.08.2020 at 12.05 A.M.
7. Mr. Jitendra S. Singh assisted by Mr. Sudhashu Kumar Deo,
learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail of
all the appellants and has referred to the evidence of P.W.-8, which
has been enumerated in the impugned judgment while submitting that
on the confessional statement of Subhas Chandra Das and Saroj Das,
the dead body of the son of the informant was recovered from the bank
of the river and the Scorpio vehicle which was used in the kidnapping
was also seized.
8. Learned counsel has submitted that so far Muskan Khatoon
(appellant in Cr.A. (DB) No. 421/2025) is concerned, she was hiding
in Madhupur, which has come in the evidence of the witnesses and
after her arrest, she has confessed.
9. Learned counsel has copiously referred to the evidence of P.W.-
8 which also relates to the call details of the other co-convicts, who
have filed the applications for bail and which includes the
confessional statement as well as the call details in order to
substantiate his submission that all the appellants in conspiracy and in
concert with each other had committed the murder of son of the
informant.
10. Mr. Arvind Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the
appellant in Cr. A.(DB) No. 267/2025 has submitted that all the
appellants were on bail during trial and so far as recovery of Scorpio
Vehicle is concerned, three persons were found boarded on the
vehicle, but none of the three persons have been examined by the
prosecution.
11. Mrs. Vandana Bharti and Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, learned APPs
have referred to the objection affidavit while submitting that Muskan
Khatoon (appellant in Cr.A. (DB) No. 421/2025) runs a gang and
therefore, it would not be feasible to admit the said appellant and other
appellants on bail.
12. From the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the
respective parties, it transpires that admittedly there are no eye
witnesses of the occurrence and only on the basis of certain
circumstances, the appellants have been convicted. So far as the
evidence of P.W.-8 is concerned, which has much been stressed upon
by the learned counsel for the informant, it appears from Exhibit-7,
which is the confessional statement of Subhas Chandra Das that the
recovery of dead body was effected prior to the recording of the
confessional statement of Subhas Chandra Das. As regards the
recovery of Scorpio vehicle, which was said to have been used in the
abduction of the victim, the persons who were present in the vehicle
admittedly have not been examined.
13. On consideration of the above, we are inclined to allow the
interlocutory applications preferred by the respective appellants.
14. Accordingly, during the pendency of these appeals, all the
appellants, named above, are directed to be released on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each
with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned
Additional Sessions Judge-III, Deoghar in S.T. No. 06 of 2021.
15. I.A. No. 7732/2025 in Cr.A.(DB) No. 421/2025, I.A. No.
8256/2025 in Cr.A.(DB) No. 267/2025, I.A. No. 7733/2025 in
Cr.A.(DB) No. 469/2025, I.A. No. 9857/2025 in Cr.A.(DB) No.
500/2025 and I.A. No. 8301/2025 in Cr.A.(DB) No. 533/2025 stand
disposed of.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Sunil/
