Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J., PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Sukhlal Nagesiya @ Sukhlal Nagesia Son of Rajendra Kisan @ Rajendra Nagesiya – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1.The instant appeal has been filed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 04.10.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Lohardaga in Misc. Criminal Application No.436 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Serengdag P.S. Case No.07 of 2023 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.610 of 2023), registered for the offences under Sections 35 3 /414/120(B) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , Sections 25(1AA), 25(1-B)a/26(11)/27/35 of the ARMS ACT and Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act, has been rejected.
2.It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that recovery of four cartridges alleged to have been made from the possession of the present appellant.
3.It has been further contended that the identically placed co-accused persons have been directed to be released on bail, which would be evident from the orders as appended as Annex.3 series available in the memo of appeal.
4.It has been contended that the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 07.07.2023. The charge has already been framed on 23.01.2024, but out of nine charge-sheeted witnesses only two witnesses have be
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.
The court can grant bail if the appellant is in custody for an extended period without charge framing, despite serious allegations and criminal antecedents.
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 determined that prior bail grants for co-accused and lack of substantial evidence justified the appellant's release on 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 court emphasized that the lack of commitment and framing of charges, along with previous acquittal, justified granting bail.
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 principle of parity in bail decisions requires similar culpability; specific allegations against the appellant preclude bail.
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
