Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J., SANJAY PRASAD, J.
Laljeet Ganjhu @ Suraj @ Badal S/o Fulchand Ganjhu – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, is directed against the order dated 27.06.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Latehar by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 406 of 2024 in connection with S.T. Case No. 78/2022 arising out of Balumath P.S. Case No. 95/2018, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 351/2018 registered under Sections 323 /341/342/307/384/385/427/506/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and27 of the ARMS ACT and 10 and 13 of the U.A.P 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. 1653 of 2023 but there is no progress in the trial, since, out of ten (10) witnesses only one (01) witness has been examined while the appellant has already been in custody for almost three (03) years.
3. It has also been contended that the reason for the rejection of the prayer for regular bail on earlier occasion was the criminal antecedents which was said to be six (06), out of which thr
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 progress and lack of incriminating evidence can justify granting bail, emphasizing the right to timely justice under Article 21.
Prolonged custody and lack of progress in trial justify granting bail, especially when co-accused with similar circumstances have been released.
The mere existence of pending criminal cases cannot justify the denial of bail without considering the accused's specific involvement in the crime.
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 granted bail due to prolonged incarceration and absence of prior criminal history, emphasizing the importance of timely trial proceedings.
The principle of parity in bail decisions requires similar culpability; specific allegations against the appellant preclude bail.
The court emphasized that the lack of commitment and framing of charges, along with previous acquittal, justified granting bail.
The principle of parity in bail applies when co-accused face identical charges, warranting similar treatment unless distinct circumstances exist.
The court can grant bail if the appellant is in custody for an extended period without charge framing, despite serious allegations and 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
