Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Md Imran @ D.C. Guddu – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 12110 of 2025) with Criminal Appeal No. 110 of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 19548 of 2025)
Decided On : 07-01-2026
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 319 and 439 [Sections 358 and 483 of BNSS] – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 and Sections 25(1-B)A/26/27/35 of Arms Act, 1959 – Bail application – Rejection – 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 at the end of court while considering his plea for bail should be strong and cogent evidence than mere probability of his complicity – Test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that evidence, if goes unrebutted would lead to conviction – Court should weigh factors like nature of offence, quality of evidence against new accused and likelihood of person absconding or tampering with evidence – Court must be satisfied that there is strong and cogent evidence of person’s complicity at threshold, much higher than that required for framing charges against original accused – In present case, other two co-accused are already on anticipatory bail – Bail granted to appellant. (Paras 14, 15 and 17)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal filed by appellant arises from order passed by High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi dated 08.04.2025 by which bail application filed by appellant in connection with Daily Market Police Station Case No. 46 of 2018, arising out of S.T. No. 100239 of 2019 registered for offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of Indian Penal Code respectively and Sections 25(1-B)A/26/27/35 of Arms Act respectively came to be rejected.
Findings of Court:
Observations in this order are only for the purpose of deciding bail application of MD Imran @ D.C. Guddu as well as for consideration of the State appeal against the order granting anticipatory bail to Md. Shamsher Alam and Md. Arshad. The trial court will proceed in accordance with law and the trial court will not be influenced by the observations in this order.
Result : Appeal filed by accused allowed and appeal filed by State of Jharkhand dismissed.
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 closure report was filed so far as the other six co-accused are concerned. In the course of the trial, the eye-witnesses to the incident who are all family members of the deceased deposed as regards the involvement of all the nine accused persons originally named in the FIR.
7. The depositions of the eyewitnesses were recorded sometime in 2020 and 2021 respectively. In the year 2022 the first informant preferred an application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., before the trial court with a prayer that the other six co-accused who came to be dropped by the police should be added and summoned as accused to face the trial. Such application was filed on the strength of the oral evidence of the eye-witnesses which came on record.
8. The application filed by the first informant was looked into by the trial court and ultimately the same came to be partly allowed. Out of the six accused who were dropped, the trial court thought fit to summon three accused persons. So far as the other three are concerned, the trial court did not deem fit to add them in exercise of its powers under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C.
9. It is not in dispute that the original order passed by the trial court under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. never came to be challenged. It attained finality. The appellant herein MD Imran @ D.C. Guddu came to be arrested pursuant to a non-bailable warrant issued against him. In so far as the respondents in the connected matters are concerned, before they could be arrested, they went before the High Court and prayed for anticipatory bail. The High Court granted them anticipatory bail.
10. In such circumstances referred to above, we have two appeals before us one filed by the accused MD Imran @ D.C. Guddu who came to be arrested and is in judicial custody and the connected appeal has been filed by the State of Jharkhand being aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court releasing the other two co-accused on anticipatory bail.
11. Since the three accused have now been summoned, the trial against them will have to proceed afresh. We are informed that charges have been framed.
12. We heard Mr. Samant Singh, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh & Mr. Ganesh Khanna, the learned counsel appearing for the respective accused persons and Ms. Pragya Baghel, the learned counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand.
13. We looked into the matter threadbare. We also looked into the oral evidence of the eyewitnesses on the strength of which the three accused have now been summoned to face the trial for the offence of murder.
14. When a person is added as an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and that person is ultimately arrested and prays for bail, the relevant consideration at the end of the court while considering his plea for bail should be the strong and cogent evidence than mere probability
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.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
