MOIZ ANSARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A No. 4279 of 2014. In all, there are two accused namely, Anis Ansari and Moiz Ansari, who were charged, faced the trial and ultimately, convicted vide impugned judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga dated 03.08.2009. Anis Ansari, after suffering conviction, filed his separate appeal bearing Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 906 of 2009 and Moiz Ansari filed Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1055 of 2009. Prayer of both the appellantsconvicts for suspension of sentence, at one stage, was rejected by this Court. Thereafter, Anis Ansari moved I.A. No. 7247 of 2013 and the present applicant-appellant moved I.A. No. 7455 of 2013. Both the bail applications came to be disposed of on the same day i.e., 30.04.2014, in which Anis Ansari was granted the concession of bail, whereas I.A. No. 7455 of 2013 moved by the applicant-appellant was rejected.

(2.) Mr. Tewari submits that while granting concession of suspension of sentence to appellant - Anis Ansari, primarily his custody period was taken into consideration by the Bench coupled with the fact that there was no likelihood of hearing the appeal in near future as at that time the appeal was not on the board for final hearing. He submits that appellant-Anis Ansari by that time had remained in custody for about eight years and the total custody period of the present applicant-appellant by that time was little more than seven years only. That Anis Ansari had remained in custody right from the date of his arrest, whereas the applicant-appellant was granted the concession of bail as under trial prisoner sometime before the final judgment was pronounced, as such, his custody period at that time turned out to be less than the period of incarceration suffered by his co-accused Anis Ansari. This primarily was the reason of rejection of the bail of present applicant-appellant.

(3.) Mr. Tewari has placed on record the photostat copy of the order dated 30.04.2014, whereby appellant - Anis Ansari was granted the concession of suspension of sentence in his separate appeal bearing Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 906 of 2009.