J. B. PARDIWALA, K. V. VISWANATHAN
Md Imran @ D. C. Guddu – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
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
Bail – When a person is added as accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and that person is ultimately arrested and prays for bail, relevant consideration should be strong and cogent evidence than mere pro....
Bail considerations must include the duration of custody and the number of witnesses examined, especially when co-accused are granted bail under similar circumstances.
A person added as an accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. can seek anticipatory bail under Section 438, as their apprehension of custody is reasonable and relates to the right to liberty.
(1) While considering an application for grant of bail a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to vital facts of case brought on record – Due ....
Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. allows for the summoning of additional accused during trial based on emerging evidence.
The seriousness of the offence under Section 395 of the IPC may warrant custodial interrogation, influencing the decision on anticipatory bail applications.
Repeated anticipatory bail applications without a change in circumstances can be considered an abuse of the court process.
The court upheld the principle of parity in granting anticipatory bail, allowing the appellants bail based on their similar situation to co-accused who were previously granted bail.
The court established that under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., strong and cogent evidence is necessary to summon an additional accused, and mere witness testimony without corroboration is insufficient.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.