Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J., PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Mansur Shekh, S/o Rabbekul Shekh – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 22.10.2024 passed by the learned Vacation Judge, Pakur in Bail Petition No. 257 of 2024, by which the prayer for grant of regular bail of the appellants in connection with Pakur (Malpahari) P.S. Case No.153 of 2024 registered under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 109, 352 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita and under Section 27 of the Arms Act and under Sections ¾ of Explosive Substances Act, has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case.
3. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that there is no recovery from the possession of the present appellants and even the appellants are not named in the FIR.
4. The ground of parity has also been taken since co-accused person, namely, Mukhtar Shekh @ Moktar Sk. has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 23.10.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1080 of 2024.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants, on the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the impugned o
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.
The court upheld the principle of parity in granting anticipatory bail, allowing the appellants bail based on their similar situation to co-accused who were previously granted bail.
The principle of parity in bail applies when co-accused face identical charges, warranting similar treatment unless distinct circumstances exist.
Bail applications must consider trial progress and the defendant's history; prolonged detention without trial progress can justify granting bail.
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 mere existence of pending criminal cases cannot justify the denial of bail without considering the accused's specific involvement in the crime.
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.
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 Principle of Parity in bail applications requires careful consideration of the specific roles and allegations against the accused, rather than a simplistic comparison with co-accused.
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
