Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJEET NARAYAN PRASAD, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Ulip Jojo Son Of Simon Jojo @ Simun Jojo – 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 09.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chakradharpur (Chaibasa) in Misc. Cr. Application No. 879 of 2024, whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail in connection with Goelkera P.S. Case No.11 of 2024 (S.T. Case No.252 of 2024) registered under Sections 147, 148, 149 , 353 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code , Sections 25 (1-A) and 35 of Arms Act, 1959 , under Section 17 of C.L.A. Act, 1908 , under sections 4 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 16(1)(b) , 18 and 20 of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 , has been rejected.
2. It has been contended on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant that it is a case where the appellant has falsely been implicated and has been taken into custody on 21.02.2024 and illegally confined the appellant without producing him before the Magistrate within a period of 24 hours, for which the Criminal Writ Petition for issuance of writ Habeas Corpus has also been filed i.e. W.P.C (Cr.) (HB) No.190 of 2024. It has been contended by making reference of the ord
The court held that the absence of recovery from the appellant and the submission of the charge-sheet warranted interference with the lower court's order denying bail.
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.
The court determined that prior bail grants for co-accused and lack of substantial evidence justified the appellant's release on bail.
The court can grant bail if the appellant is in custody for an extended period without charge framing, despite serious allegations and criminal antecedents.
The court emphasized that the lack of commitment and framing of charges, along with previous acquittal, justified granting bail.
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.
The denial of bail was deemed unjustified due to lack of direct evidence against the appellant and the fact that co-accused had been granted bail.
The mere existence of pending criminal cases cannot justify the denial of bail without considering the accused's specific involvement in the crime.
Judicial discretion in bail matters requires equitable treatment; the custody of an accused may not be justified when co-accused facing similar charges are granted bail.
Prolonged judicial custody without trial progress and lack of incriminating evidence can justify granting bail, emphasizing the right to timely justice under Article 21.
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
