Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J., PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Sikendra Kohar Son Of Murahu Kohar – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
I.A. No. 13861 of 2024
1. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that she does not intend to press the instant interlocutory application, which has been filed on behalf of the appellant for early hearing of the case.
2. Such submission has been made in presence of Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
3. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No.13861 of 2024 is dismissed as not pressed.
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1538 of 2024
4. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 18.11.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Misc. Criminal Application No. 2330 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with S.T. Case No.329 of 2024 arising out of Bagbera P.S. Case No.191 of 2023 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.301 of 2024), registered for the offences under Section 380 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , later on Sections 411 , 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and120-B of the I.P.C. has been added, has been rejected.
5. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that earlier to the p
A court may grant bail if the duration of custody is excessive, especially when co-accused are released, and substantial evidence supporting charges is lacking.
The principle of parity in bail decisions requires similar culpability; specific allegations against the appellant preclude 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.
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 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.
The principle of parity in bail applies when co-accused face identical charges, warranting similar treatment unless distinct circumstances exist.
Prolonged judicial custody without trial violates the right to a speedy trial under Article 21, making it a fit case for bail despite multiple pending criminal cases.
The mere existence of pending criminal cases cannot justify the denial of bail without considering the accused's specific involvement in the crime.
Prolonged custody and lack of progress in trial justify granting bail, especially when co-accused with similar circumstances have been released.
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
