IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ
Singrai Kayam, Son Of Guray Kayam – 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 14.10.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chakradharpur (Chaibasa) in M.C.A. No.1043 of 2024, whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with S.T. Case No.371 of 2023 arising out of Goilkera P.S. Case No. 39 of 2020 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 120(B) of the I.P.C, under Sections 3 & 4 of Explosive Substance Act and under Section 17 of the C.L.A. 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 on the basis of general and omnibus allegation. The appellant is languishing in judicial custody, on the basis of false implication in the present case, since 12.04.2023.
3. It is further contended that the trial is going on and out of 8 witnesses, 3 witnesses have been examined and five witnesses are still to be examined and as such, considering the slow progress of trial and more particularly, by taking into consideration the period of custody as also that one of the co-accused namely
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 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 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.
The court determined that prior bail grants for co-accused and lack of substantial evidence justified the appellant's release on 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 court granted bail due to prolonged custody and lack of serious injury charges, setting aside the lower court's rejection based on insufficient grounds.
Bail applications must consider trial progress and the defendant's history; prolonged detention without trial progress can justify granting bail.
The absence of evidence, such as recovery of explosives, and prolonged custody are critical factors for granting bail under serious charges.
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.
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.