AZMAL HUSSAIN @ BABLU Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN course of hearing of B.A. No. 1674 2009 along with B.A. No. 3339 of 2009 arising out of common Bahragora (Barsole) P.S. Case No. 96 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. No. 546 of 2008 on the prayer of the petitioners Birendra Paswan @ Yogendra Paswan and Arvind Shaw @ Arjun Shaw the learned A.P.P. pointed out that the co -accused Azmal Hussain @ Bablu with the graver allegation was admitted to bail on misrepresentation and suppression of material facts as would be evident from the F.I.R. of Bahragora (Barsole) P.S. Case No. 96 of 2008. The learned A.P.P. further pointed out that the owner of the Bolero vehicle had instituted a different case in the West Bengal about the missing of his vehicle which was driven by the accused Azmal Hussain @ Bablu and this fact was misrepresented in the instant case arising out of Bahragora (Barsole) P.S. Case No. 96 of 2008 wherein there was direct allegation against Azmal Hussain @ Bablu of his active participation with the alleged recovery of booty and a pistol.

(2.) PURSUANT to such statement though the co -accused Birendra Paswan @ Yogendra Paswan and Arvind Shaw @ Arjun Shaw were admitted to bail on executing bail bonds, but at the same time, on the submission of the learned A.P.P. for the alleged misrepresentation by the co -accused Azmal Hussain @ Bablu a notice was directed to be issued and accordingly it was issued on his address given in B.A. No. 1893 of 2009 calling upon him as to why not his bail earlier granted to him on 27.06.2009 be recalled on the ground that the same was obtained on misrepresentation and suppression of material facts. Pursuant to such notice, the accused -petitioner Azmal Hussain @ Bablu filed his show -cause in B.A. No. 1893 of 2009 and was pressed by the learned, Sr. Counsel Mr. M.S. Anwar assisted by Miss. Nehala Sharmin. With reference to paragraph No. 7 & 9 of the causes shown by the petitioner, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that it was wrongly submitted on behalf of the State with respect to the alleged recovery of pistol from the possession of the petitioner although seizure list was annexed with the F.I.R. with the Bail Petition, as contained in Annexure -1, which indicated alleged recovery of Rs. 18,400/ - only from the possession of the petitioner, which according to him, was misconception of fact as a person named Azmat Khan whose voter identity card had fell down from his pocket in course of alleged dacoity was picked up and so the petitioner was arrested on mistaken identity for the resemblance of his name with one Azmat Khan though he was Azmal Hussain and not Azmat Khan. Admittedly, the petitioner was the driver of the Bolero vehicle which was taken out by one Basant Kumar Choudhary on the pretext to carry the near relatives for participation in "Chhekka" ceremony of his daughter and that the vehicle as well as the driver petitioner were overpowered by the culprits and the petitioner had sought help from the West Bengal police and from there he was brought to Barsole police station from where he was remanded in the instant case. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Anwar submitted that, as a matter of fact, the petitioner was himself a victim of the circumstances and whatever any amount was recovered, such recovery was made from the possession of Azmat Khan and not from his possession. The petitioner though a poor driver, carried good reputation and a man of clean antecedent and the owner of the vehicle had registered a case about the missing of his vehicle and at no point of time he suspected about the conduct of the petitioner. The petitioner was already facing trial and had not concealed anything so as to treat the submissions made on his behalf, as misrepresentation of fact or concealment of fact for obtaining his bail from this Hon'ble Court as his bail petition was self -explanatory which could be evident from its plain reading.