IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J., PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Karan Kumar @ Karan Dhikhar, S/o Kailash Dhikhar – 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 03.09.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-X, Dhanbad in Misc. Criminal Application No.2153 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Jharia P.S. Case No.23 of 2023 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.2678 of 2023) [S.T. No. 345 of 2023] [S.T. No. 11 of 2024], registered for the offences under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 323, 324, 307 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE added Sections 302, 354 of the I.P.C., Section 27(1- B)(a) of the ARMS ACT , Section 4 /5 of the Explosive Substances Act, has been rejected.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where the prayer for regular bail, although, on earlier occasion has been rejected, however, with the observation to expedite the trial but the trial has not yet been concluded and out of thirteen witnesses, only five witnesses have been examined as yet, while the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 30.08.2023.
3. It has further been contended that in the meanwhile, the other co-accused persons have be directed to be
Appellate courts can intervene in bail decisions where delays in trial proceedings occur, especially when co-accused are granted bail under similar serious allegations.
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 principle of parity in bail applies when co-accused face identical charges, warranting similar treatment unless distinct circumstances exist.
Prolonged custody and lack of progress in trial justify granting bail, especially when co-accused with similar circumstances have been released.
Bail applications must consider trial progress and the defendant's history; prolonged detention without trial progress can justify granting bail.
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.
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.
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.