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
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1587 of 2024
Decided On : 25-02-2025
(A) National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 21(4) - Appeal against denial of bail - The appellant's request for bail was denied by the Additional Sessions Judge, citing lack of specific allegations against him and absence of direct evidence linking him to the crime. Several co-accused had been granted bail, which was not disputed by the prosecution. The Court found the denial of bail to the appellant unjustified given the circumstances. (Paras 1, 8, 10)
(B) Judicial Custody - The appellant had been in judicial custody since 09.08.2024, raising concerns regarding the length of detention without sufficient evidence. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
The appeal was filed against an order denying bail to the appellant in a case involving serious charges under IPC and related laws. The appellant contended he was falsely implicated and lacked direct allegations against him. (Paras 1-4)
Findings of Court:
The Court acknowledged the prolonged custody of the appellant and the fact that co-accused had been granted bail, concluding that there was no justification to deny bail to the appellant as well. (Paras 8-10)
Issues: The primary issue was whether the denial of bail was justified in the absence of direct evidence against the appellant and in light of the co-accused being granted bail. (Paras 1, 8)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court determined that the continued detention of the appellant was unwarranted, especially when co-accused had been granted bail, and thus, the order denying bail was quashed. (Para 10)
Result: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was directed to be released on bail. (Paras 11-12)
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 Kumar Chourasia @ Bambam Kumar; Bishnu Mandal @ Bishnu Kumar Mandal; Krishna Mandal; Deepak Ravidas @ Deepak Kumar Das; Budha Mandal @ Budhan Mandal @ Budas Mandal @ Kishun Mandal @ Kishun Kumar Mandal; Ajay Mandal @ Fagu Mandal @ Ajay Kumar; Mangan Das @ Mangan Kumar Das; Sita Ram Das; Rajkumar Mandal; Bikash Chourasiya and; Laxman Mandal @ Jai Kumar Mandal have been granted bail vide orders dated 13.11.2019; 25.01.2021; 11.02.2021; 09.06.2021; 23.11.2021; 09.01.2023; 06.07.2023; 09.09.2024; 09.09.2024; 09.09.2024; 16.10.2024 and; 29.10.2024 passed in B.A. No. 7706 of 2019; B.A. No. 11733 of 2020; B.A. No. 850 of 2021; B.A. No. 4038 of 2021; B.A. No. 11576 of 2021; Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1441 of 2022; Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 902 of 2023; Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1126 of 2024; Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1127 of 2024; Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1128 of 2024; Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1280 of 2024 and; Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1368 of 2024 respectively.
5. It has been contended that the appellant in languishing in judicial custody since 09.08.2024.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid premise, has submitted that the instant appeal also deserves to be allowed so that the appellant be released on bail.
7. While on the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail so far as the involvement as per the allegation against the appellant is concerned but she is fair enough to admit the fact that several identically placed 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 Kumar Chourasia @ Bambam Kumar; Bishnu Mandal @ Bishnu Kumar Mandal; Krishna Mandal; Deepak Ravidas @ Deepak Kumar Das; Budha Mandal @ Budhan Mandal @ Budas Mandal @ Kishun Mandal @ Kishun Kumar Mandal; Ajay Mandal @ Fagu Mandal @ Ajay Kumar; Mangan Das @ Mangan Kumar Das; Sita Ram Das;Rajkumar Mandal; Bikash Chourasiya and; Laxman Mandal @ Jai Kumar Mandal have been directed to be released on bail. Such submission has been made by going through the orders appended as Annexure-2 series.
8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 09.08.2024 as also taking into consideration that several co-accused person, 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 Kumar Chourasia @ Bambam Kumar; Bishnu Mandal @ Bishnu Kumar Mandal; Krishna Mandal; Deepak Ravidas @ Deepak Kumar Das; Budha Mandal @ Budhan Mandal @ Budas Mandal @ Kishun Mandal @
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
