SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI
Surendra Ganjhu @ Sushant Bhokta, S/o. Mangal Ganjhu – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 26.07.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.919 of 2023 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Piparwar P.S. Case No.36 of 2019, registered for the offence under Sections 385, 386, 387 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 17(i)(ii) of the C.L.A. Act and Sections 16, 17, 20 and 23 of the UAP Act, has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that there is no specific allegation said to attract any penal offence including the offence under UAP Act, 1967. Such submission has been made on the ground that there is general and omnibus allegation against 77 accused persons, as would be evident from the F.I.R. but there is no specific attributability said to be committed by the present appellant.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that in the present case no sanction has been granted by the competent authority as required under Section 45 of the UAP Act, 1967 and, as such, even the cognizance
The court ruled that vague allegations against multiple accused do not justify denial of bail, especially when co-accused have been granted bail under similar circumstances.
The court can grant bail if the appellant is in custody for an extended period without charge framing, despite serious allegations and criminal antecedents.
Prolonged judicial custody without trial progress and lack of incriminating evidence can justify granting bail, emphasizing the right to timely justice under Article 21.
The principle of parity in bail applies when co-accused face identical charges, warranting similar treatment unless distinct circumstances exist.
The court established that interim bail cannot be granted under the NIA Act or UAPA in the absence of statutory provisions allowing for such relief.
Bail applications must consider trial progress and the defendant's history; prolonged detention without trial progress can justify granting bail.
Appellate courts can intervene in bail decisions where delays in trial proceedings occur, especially when co-accused are granted bail under similar serious allegations.
The mere existence of pending criminal cases cannot justify the denial of bail without considering the accused's specific involvement in the crime.
Court emphasized the principles of bail, including the significance of parity and the duration of custody, leading to a decision to grant bail despite criminal antecedents.
The court ruled that the denial of bail was unjustified as similar co-accused were granted bail or acquitted, necessitating similar treatment for the appellant.
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.