Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J., SANJAY PRASAD, J.
Dablu Yadav @ Satendra Yadav S/o Muneshar Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
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 contend
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
