Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, SANJAY PRASAD, JJ.
Dablu Yadav @ Satendra Yadav S/o Muneshar Yadav - Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 688 of 2024
Decided On : 07-02-2025
(A) National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 21(4) - Arms Act - Sections 25(1-A), 25(1-AA), 26(2), 35 - CLA Act - Bail application - The appellant's prayer for regular bail was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, but similar co-accused were granted bail by the court - The court found that the allegations against the appellant were identical to those of co-accused, warranting interference with the previous order. (Paras 1, 9, 12)
(B) Bail - Principles governing bail - The court emphasized that when co-accused with identical allegations are granted bail, similar treatment should be afforded to the appellant unless distinct circumstances exist. (Paras 9, 11)
Facts of the case:
The appeal was filed against the rejection of the bail application of the appellant in connection with a case involving multiple co-accused, all facing similar charges under the Arms Act and CLA Act.
Findings of Court:
The court found no distinct circumstances to deny bail to the appellant, given that co-accused had been granted bail under similar allegations.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant should be granted bail in light of identical allegations against co-accused who had been released on bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the principle of parity in bail should apply when co-accused face identical charges, leading to the conclusion that the appellant's bail should be granted.
Result: The order rejecting bail was quashed, and the appeal was allowed.
ORDER :
1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 09.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Latehar by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in Misc. Criminal Application No. 301 of 2024 in connection with ST No. 214/2023 arising out of Latehar P.S. Case No. 164 of 2022 registered under Sections 25(1-A), 25(1-AA), 26(2), 35 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of CLA Act has been rejected.
2. The submission has been made that the identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Upendra Yadav and Raju Yadav @ Raju Ji, have been directed to be released on bail by this Court vide order dated 10.12.2024, and 27.11.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 693 of 2024 and Cr.Appeal (DB) No. 889 of 2024, respectively.
3. Further it has been submitted that the other co-accused persons namely Kuldeep Mehta @ Bikesh Ji and Bigan Bhuiyan, have also been directed to be released on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.04.2024 and 08.05.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1877 of 2023 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 536 of 2024, respectively.
4. It has further been contended that even the prayer for regular bail of co-accused namely Raju Yadav @ Raju Ji who prayer was rejected on earlier occasion has already been granted bail by this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that since the identical co-accused persons has already granted bail, therefore, the interfere with the impugned order requires herein.
6. While on the other hand, Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail but he is fair enough to admit the fact that the allegation against the appellant and the co-accused persons is identical.
7. Further, the bail granted in favour of the identically placed co-accused persons has also not been disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the rival submissions and is of the view that even the case of the present appellant has earlier been rejected on earlier occasion but the trial is still in progress.
9. This Court, taking into consideration the fact that the implication as alleged is identical to that of the co-accused, particularly, of Raju Yadav @ Raju Ji, is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with.
10. Further, the co-accused persons namely, Upendra Yadav and Raju Yadav @ Raju Ji, have been directed to be released on bail by this Court vide order dated 10.12.2024, and 27.11.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB)No. 693 of 2024 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 889 of 2024, respectively.
11. It has also come on record that the other co-accused persons namely Kuldeep Mehta @ Bikesh Ji and Bigan Bhuiyan, have also been directed to be released on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.04.2024 and 08.05.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1877 of 2023 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 536 of 2024, respectively, therefore on the basis of aforesaid facts, there is no need to take the distinct view.
12. Accordingly, the order dated 09.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Latehar in Misc. Criminal Application No. 301 of 2024, by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellant, in connection with ST No. 214/2023 arising out of Latehar P.S. Case No. 164 of 2022, is hereby quashed and set aside.
13. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.
14. In consequence thereof, the appellant, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Latehar in connection with ST No. 214/2023 arising out of Latehar P.S. Case No. 164 of 2022, subject to the condition that the appellant will cooperate in the trial and sha
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 progress and lack of incriminating evidence can justify granting bail, emphasizing the right to timely justice under Article 21.
Prolonged custody and lack of progress in trial justify granting bail, especially when co-accused with similar circumstances have been released.
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 court emphasized the principle of parity in bail decisions, allowing bail for the appellant due to prolonged custody and similarity to co-accused cases.
The principle of parity in bail decisions requires similar culpability; specific allegations against the appellant preclude bail.
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 court determined that prior bail grants for co-accused and lack of substantial evidence justified the appellant's release on 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 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
