Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J., PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Sachin Yadav @ Sachin Kumar Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 for setting aside the order dated 25.01.2025 passed in Anticipatory Bail Petition No.262 of 2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Dhanbad in connection with Putki P.S. Case No.23 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 337, 353, 307, 387 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and under Section 3/4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908, whereby and whereunder, the appellant’s prayer for anticipatory bail has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that it is a case where the appellant has falsely been implicated.
3. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has got no concern with any of the members of said coal lifting parties and at the time of occurrence of this case, the petitioner was at his duty.
4. Learned counsel has further submitted that no case is made out against the petitioner under alleged Sections of the Indian Penal Code or under the Explosive Substance Act or Section 27 of the Arms Act.
5. It has been contended that identically placed co-accused p
Anticipatory bail should be granted when similarly situated co-accused are released, emphasizing equitable treatment in judicial proceedings.
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 the principle of parity in bail decisions requires similar treatment for co-accused in identical circumstances.
The principle of parity in granting bail dictates that if co-accused in identical circumstances receive bail, the same should apply to the appellant.
The court ruled that prior efforts to secure bail do not merit reconsideration when serious allegations and an ongoing investigation persist, and pre-arrest bail was denied.
The court ruled that an applicant for bail must show a prima facie case for the privilege of pre-arrest bail, particularly in contexts lacking incriminating evidence against them.
Anticipatory bail cannot be granted when prior applications have been rejected on merit and there has been non-compliance with Supreme Court directives without any change in circumstances.
The court granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code, emphasizing the need for cooperation in the investigation while addressing the validity of serious allegations.
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.
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
