Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ
Ainul Khan @ Govind Jee @ Ainul Miyan, S/o Late Bassiruddin Khan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant criminal appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 01.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Palamau at Daltonganj in Misc. Cri. Application No.1531 of 2024, whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail in connection with Untari Road P.S. Case No.19 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1007 2016, S.T. No.213 of 2023 registered under Sections 147, 149, 435, 427, 379 of Indian Penal Code, Section 17 of CLA Act and Sections 38, 39 and 40 of UAP Act, has been rejected.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where the appellant has falsely been implicated based upon confessional statement of the co-accused person and he is languishing in judicial custody since 07.12.2022. It has been contended that several co-accused have been directed to release on bail as evident from the order dated 12th April, 2023 passed in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.194 of 2023, wherein, the reference of the orders passed with respect to the other co-accused persons have been taken one.
3. It has been contended that even though the appellant is in judicial custody since
Prolonged judicial custody without trial violates the right to a speedy trial under Article 21, making it a fit case for bail despite multiple pending criminal cases.
Prolonged custody and lack of progress in trial justify granting bail, especially when co-accused with similar circumstances have been released.
The mere existence of pending criminal cases cannot justify the denial of bail without considering the accused's specific involvement in the crime.
The court emphasized the principle of parity in bail decisions, allowing bail for the appellant due to prolonged custody and similarity to co-accused cases.
Prolonged judicial custody without trial progress and lack of incriminating evidence can justify granting bail, emphasizing the right to timely justice under Article 21.
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 principle of parity in bail applies when co-accused face identical charges, warranting similar treatment unless distinct circumstances exist.
The court ruled that prolonged judicial custody and slow trial progress justified granting bail, balancing the rights of the accused with the interests of justice.
Bail considerations must include the duration of custody and the number of witnesses examined, especially when co-accused are 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.
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
