Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J., NAVNEET KUMAR, J.
Shankar Uraon @ Shankar Oraon, Son Of Etwa Uraon – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 26.11.2024 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 1260 of 2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra wherein the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Piparwar P.S. Case no. 34 of 2024 registered under Sections 25(1-A), 25(1-B)a, 26 and 35 of Arms Act, under Section 17(1)(ii) of CLA Act and under Section 17, 18, 20 of UA(P) Act has been rejected.
2. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that it is a case where the appellant has been implicated mainly on the ground that he has been caught along with the other co-accused persons from whose possession the incriminating arms have been recovered.
3. It has further been contended that there is no recovery from the physical and conscious possession of the appellant Section 25 is not applicable.
4. The further submission has been made that no ingredient of Section 17, 18, 20 of the UA(P) Act is attracted, since, it is not found in the case diary that the appellant is involved in collecting any money to aid the extremist activities.
5.
The court found insufficient evidence to justify the denial of bail, emphasizing the lack of recovery from the appellant's possession and the absence of victim testimony.
The court ruled that the denial of bail was unjustified as similar co-accused were granted bail or acquitted, necessitating similar treatment for the appellant.
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 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 ruled that vague allegations against multiple accused do not justify denial of bail, especially when co-accused have been granted bail under similar circumstances.
The court established that lack of criminal antecedents and prolonged judicial custody can justify the granting of bail despite allegations of serious offences.
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.
Bail denied due to serious allegations and appellant's criminal history, despite claims of false implication.
Bail can be denied based on sufficient witness corroboration and prior criminal history, despite not being named in the FIR.
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
