Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J., NAVNEET KUMAR, J.
Pintu Bharti – 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 12.07.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra in Misc. Criminal Application No.703 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Chatra Sadar P.S. Case No.74 of 2024, registered for the offence under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 120-B, 353, 307, 302, 504, 506, 323, 325, 324, 326 and 333 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , Section 27(3) of the ARMS ACT , Section 17 (i)(ii) of the CLA Act and Section 16 , 18, 20, 38, 39 and 19 of the UAP Act, has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is a case where the chargesheet was submitted 24.08.2024 but as yet the charge has not been framed due to want of sanction as required under Section 45 of the UAP Act.
3. It has been contended that the name of the present appellant has been dragged in the present case on the basis of the confessional statement co-accused person but nothing has been recovered from the conscious or physical possession of the appellant. Even there is no material having been collected in course of investigation r
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.
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 emphasized that the lack of commitment and framing of charges, along with previous acquittal, justified granting bail.
The court ruled that prior criminal history and confessions regarding involvement in serious offenses justify the denial of bail, prioritizing public safety and ongoing investigations.
The principle of parity in bail decisions requires similar culpability; specific allegations against the appellant preclude bail.
The court ruled that vague allegations against multiple accused do not justify denial of bail, especially when co-accused have been granted bail under similar circumstances.
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 court emphasized the principle of parity in bail decisions, allowing bail for the appellant due to prolonged custody and similarity to co-accused cases.
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
