IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J., SANJAY PRASAD, J.
Sudhir Kumar @ Tappu S/o Late Shambhu Nath Som – 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 29.04.2024 passed by the learned A.J.C-XVIII-cum-Spl. Judge, ATS, Ranchi by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in Miscellaneous Criminal Appeal No. 1298 of 2024 arising out of Ranchi ATS P.S. Case No. 05 of 2023 corresponding to Ranchi ATS, Ranchi and ATS Case No. 03 of 2023 registered under Sections25(1AA), 25(6), 25(7), 26/35 of the ARMS ACT has been rejected.
2. It has further been contended that although the prayer for regular bail of the appellant was rejected on earlier occasion as it is evident from the order dated 6th February 2024 passed in Criminal Appeal (D.B) No. 1824 of 2023 but subsequent thereto out of nine (09) witnesses only two (02) witnesses have been examined while the appellant is in judicial custody for the last 19 months.
3. The submission has been made that the identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Tinku Singh whose bail has also been rejected earlier by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, however, considering the period of custody of 16 months, the co-accused person namely Tinku Singh has been di
Prolonged custody and lack of progress in trial justify granting bail, especially when co-accused with similar circumstances have been released.
The principle of parity in bail applies when co-accused face identical charges, warranting similar treatment unless distinct circumstances exist.
Prolonged judicial custody without trial progress and lack of incriminating evidence can justify granting bail, emphasizing the right to timely justice under Article 21.
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 decisions requires similar culpability; specific allegations against the appellant preclude 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.
Bail applications must consider trial progress and the defendant's history; prolonged detention without trial progress can justify granting bail.
Prolonged judicial custody without trial violates the right to a speedy trial under Article 21, making it a fit case for bail despite multiple pending criminal cases.
Bail considerations must include the duration of custody and the number of witnesses examined, especially when co-accused are granted bail under similar circumstances.
A bail application can be denied based on the severity of charges, potential evidence tampering, and the accused's extensive criminal history, highlighting the need for judicial caution in organized ....
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.