Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J., PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Naim Ansari @ Md. Naimuddin Ansari @ Koka @ Naimu, Son of Late Kamruddin Ansari – 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 07.10.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Madhupur in B.P. No.162 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Madhupur P.S. Case No.252 of 2023 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.361 of 2024), registered for the offences under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 323, 325, 307 and 379 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 3 /4 of the Explosive Substances Act, has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that it is a case where no final form has been submitted for offence under Section 3 /4 of the Explosive Substances Act.
3. It has been submitted that the charge-sheet has been submitted for commission of offences under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 341, 323, 325 and307 of the I.P.C.
4. It has been submitted that the nature of injury is also not so serious and whatever act has been conducted by the appellant, he has already been remained in custody since 26.09.2024. As such, the charge-sheet has been submitted but as yet the charge has not been framed.
3. Learned counsel, ba
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.
The absence of evidence, such as recovery of explosives, and prolonged custody are critical factors for granting bail under serious charges.
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 can grant bail if the appellant is in custody for an extended period without charge framing, despite serious allegations and criminal antecedents.
Bail can be denied based on sufficient witness corroboration and prior criminal history, despite not being named in the FIR.
An appeal lies under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act, 2008 against a Special Court's order on bail, highlighting the maintainability of such petitions.
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 progress and lack of incriminating evidence can justify granting bail, emphasizing the right to timely justice under Article 21.
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 absence of evidence linking the appellant to the crime justifies the granting of bail, emphasizing the need for substantial proof in bail matters.
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
