Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J., PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Vinay Singh Chero @ Vinay Kumar Singh @ Vinay Jee @ Vinay Singh, Son of Gulab Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Order :
1.The instant appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 22.08.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar in Misc. Criminal Application No.534 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Latehar P.S. Case No.218 of 2020 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.490 of 2021(S)), registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 307, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25(1-A), 25(1-B)a, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act, Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 17 of the C.L.A., has been rejected.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that although, the prayer for regular bail made earlier to present appeal being Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.473 of 2023 has been withdrawn on 28.04.2023 but again the prayer has been made on the ground that the progress in the trial is very slow and the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 05.01.2022.
3. It has been contended that identically placed accused persons have been directed to be released on bail, i.e., Sudhir Lohra in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.579 of 2023 on 1
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 can grant bail if the appellant is in custody for an extended period without charge framing, despite serious allegations and criminal antecedents.
The court determined that prior bail grants for co-accused and lack of substantial evidence justified the appellant's release on bail.
Prolonged custody and lack of progress in trial justify granting bail, especially when co-accused with similar circumstances have been released.
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.
The principle of parity in bail decisions requires similar culpability; specific allegations against the appellant preclude bail.
Bail applications must consider trial progress and the defendant's history; prolonged detention without trial progress can justify granting bail.
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.
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
