Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ
Bishnu Mandal @ Bishnu Kumar Mandal, s/o Satish Chandar Mandal – Appellant
Versus
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 05.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Sahibganj in B.P. No. 285 of 2024, by which the prayer for grant of regular bail of the appellant in connection with Borio (J) P.S. Case No.243 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No.278 of 2019 registered under Section 302/34 of IPC, Section 3/4 of Explosive Substance Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act, has been rejected.
2. It has been contended that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the instant case as also no specific allegation has been levelled against the appellant regarding the firing of gunshot. There is also no allegation of hurling bomb upon the appellant.
3. It has also been contended that there is no direct or any cogent material available against the appellant to connect the appellant in the present case.
4. It has also been contended that several co-accused persons, namely, Vipin Kumar Chourasia; Nitay Mandal @ Nitay Kumar @ Nitay Kumar Mandal, Manoj Mandal @ Manoj Kumar Mandal, Bishnu Mandal @ Bishnu Kumar @ Bishnu Kumar Mandal, Bambam Chourasia @ Piyush K
The denial of bail was deemed unjustified due to lack of direct evidence against the appellant and the fact that co-accused had been granted 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 principle of parity in bail applies when co-accused face identical charges, warranting similar treatment unless distinct circumstances exist.
The court ruled that prolonged judicial custody and slow trial progress justified granting bail, balancing the rights of the accused with the interests of justice.
Bail considerations must include the duration of custody and the number of witnesses examined, especially when co-accused are granted bail under similar circumstances.
The absence of evidence, such as recovery of explosives, and prolonged custody are critical factors for granting bail under serious charges.
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.
The court determined that prior bail grants for co-accused and lack of substantial evidence justified the appellant's release on bail.
Appellate courts can intervene in bail decisions where delays in trial proceedings occur, especially when co-accused are granted bail under similar serious allegations.
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
