Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J., PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Sheikh Guddu @ Sheikh Ahasan, Son Of Late Sheikh Imbrahim – Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1.On affidavit, leave has been sought to accept the affidavit.
2. Leave is granted.
3. Let the affidavit be taken on record.
4. Office is directed to do the needful.
5. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 04.09.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad in Bail Petition No.596 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Madhuban P.S. Case No.63 of 2024, registered for the offences under Section 109/3(5) of the B.N.S., Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act, has been rejected.
6. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has committed no offence and he has falsely been implicated in the instant case only in order to harassing.
7. It has been submitted that there is no recovery of any explosive substance from the physical or conscious possession of the present appellant, rather, the remains of the exploded bomb recovered from the balcony of the house of the informant which has been said to be exploded by the present appellant but to that effect the
The absence of evidence linking the appellant to the crime justifies the granting of bail, emphasizing the need for substantial proof in bail matters.
The absence of evidence, such as recovery of explosives, and prolonged custody are critical factors for granting bail under serious charges.
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.
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.
Bail considerations must include the duration of custody and the number of witnesses examined, especially when co-accused are granted bail under similar circumstances.
Bail can be denied based on sufficient witness corroboration and prior criminal history, despite not being named in the FIR.
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 denied due to serious allegations and appellant's criminal history, despite claims of false implication.
The mere existence of pending criminal cases cannot justify the denial of bail without considering the accused's specific involvement in the crime.
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.
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
