Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J., SANJAY PRASAD, J.
Dawender Kumar Singh S/o Late Jangbahadur Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the appeal and case details. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments from the appellant's counsel. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments from the state's counsel. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. court's analysis of evidence and arguments. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. court's conclusion on the bail application. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 6. dismissal of the appeal. (Para 15) |
ORDER :
1. The instant appeal under section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has been directed against the order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Latehar in Misc. Cr. Application No. 560 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Baresarh P.S. Case No. 04 of 2017 corresponding to S.T. No. 91 of 2024 registered under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 307, 324, 325, 326, 353 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , Section 3 (a), 3(b), 4(a), 4(b) of Explosive Substance Act, Section 10 , 13, 16 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Section 17 of CLA Act, has been rejected.
2. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant is not named in the FIR, but he has been implicated.
3. It has further been contended that if
Bail can be denied based on sufficient witness corroboration and prior criminal history, despite not being named in the FIR.
The court determined that prior bail grants for co-accused and lack of substantial evidence justified the appellant's release on bail.
The court emphasized that the lack of commitment and framing of charges, along with previous acquittal, justified granting bail.
The absence of evidence, such as recovery of explosives, and prolonged custody are critical factors for granting bail under serious charges.
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 granted bail due to prolonged custody and lack of serious injury charges, setting aside the lower court's rejection based on insufficient grounds.
Bail denied due to serious allegations and appellant's criminal history, despite claims of false implication.
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 ruled that an applicant for bail must show a prima facie case for the privilege of pre-arrest bail, particularly in contexts lacking incriminating evidence against them.
The principle of parity in bail decisions requires similar culpability; specific allegations against the appellant preclude bail.
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
