SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(SC) 33

J. B. PARDIWALA, K. V. VISWANATHAN
Md Imran @ D. C. Guddu – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Pragya Baghel, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Langar, AOR Mr. Sujeet Kumar Chaubey, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Singh, AOR Mr. Samant Singhi, Adv. Mr. Rohit Singh, Adv. Ms. Anu H. Kirutthika, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Pallavi Langar, AOR Ms. Pragya Baghel, Adv. Mr. Sujeet Kumar Chaubey, Adv. Mr. Ganesh Khanna, Adv. Mr. Satyabeer Singh, Adv. Mr. Gauraw Kumar, Adv. Mr. Avinash Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Bhushan, AOR

Judgement Key Points

The court's decision focuses on whether a person who is added as an accused under a specific legal provision can be granted bail if they are arrested and request it. The key point is that the evidence against the person must be strong and convincing, more than just a possibility of their involvement. It should be enough that, if not challenged, it could lead to a conviction, and the court must be satisfied that there is clear proof of their involvement at this stage. The court also considers factors like the seriousness of the crime, the strength of the evidence, and whether the person might run away or interfere with evidence. In this case, the court decided to grant bail to the accused because the evidence was deemed sufficiently strong, and other co-accused persons already had bail. The court emphasized that the trial court should proceed without being influenced by these observations and that all accused should cooperate with the ongoing trial.


ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. Since the issues involved in both the captioned appeals are the same, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. So far as the Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl) No. 12110/2025 is concerned, the same has been filed by one MD Imran @ D.C. Guddu.

4. The appeal filed by Imran @ D.C. Guddu arises from the order passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi dated 08.04.2025 in BA No.2758/2025 by which the bail application filed by the appellant in connection with Daily Market Police Station Case No. 46 of 2018, arising out of S.T. No. 100239 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) respectively and Sections 25(1-B)A/26/27/35 of the Arms Act respectively came to be rejected.

5. It appears from the materials on record that the appellant herein viz. MD Imran @ D.C. Guddu was one of the accused persons named in the FIR lodged by the father of the deceased.

6. The FIR was registered against in all nine accused persons. At the end of the investigation chargesheet came to be filed only against three accused persons, whereas the closur

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top