Md. Maksood Ansari @ Mithun @ Maksud ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 5711 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Md. Maksood Ansari @ Mithun @ Maksud ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 September, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen, Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

      IN     THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1138 of 2018
      Md. Maksood Ansari @ Mithun @ Maksud Ansari
                                                    .....   ...     Appellant
                                  Versus
      The State of Jharkhand.
                                                       ..... ...      Respondent
                         --------
      CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

: SRI SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

------

For the Appellant : Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, A.P.P.

------

I.A. No. 9195 of 2025.

12/ 11.09.2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P.

for the State.

2. By way of filing this interlocutory application, the appellant

has renewed his prayer to suspend the sentence and release him on bail,

during the pendency of this appeal.

3. Counsel for the appellant submits that this interlocutory

application has been filed on the observation given to renew the prayer

for bail after one year.

4. We have considered the case of the appellant and also seen

the evidence against him and found that there is direct allegation

against the appellant that he has stabbed the deceased to death and

further in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of Omprakash Sahni Versus Jai Shankar Chaudhary & Anr., reported

in (2023) 6 SCC 123, where it has been held that the endeavour on the

part of the court, should be to see as to whether the case presented by

the prosecution and accepted by the trial court can be said to be a case

in which, ultimately the convict stands for fair chance of acquittal, if

the answer is affirmative, he should not be kept behind the bar for a

pretty long period, however, the court should not reappreciate the

evidence and try to pick up a few lacunae or loophole in the case of the

prosecution, we are not inclined to allow this interlocutory application.

The prayer for bail of the appellant, above named, is rejected.

5. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is dismissed.

(Ananda Sen, J.)

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Amitesh/-