Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ
Vishnu Yadav @ Bishnu Prasad Yadav, Son of Late Basudeo Yadav @ Late Basudeo Prasad Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 13.09.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum- Special Judge, Cyber Crime Case, Deoghar in Misc. Cri. Application No. 1319 of 2024 whereby and whereunder, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Sessions Trial No. 12 of 2024, arising out of Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No. 16 of 2023, registered for the offence under Sections 302, 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section ¾ of the Explosive Substances Act, has been rejected.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the prayer for regular bail has been renewed on the ground of custody.
3. It has been contended that although the prayer for regular bail of the appellant was rejected on earlier occasion, but the trial since, has not yet been concluded. The aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration, therefore, the impugned order needs interference.
4. It has been contended that co-accused namely, Md. Akram Sheikh has been released on bail in terms of order dated 17.05.2023 passed by this Court in C
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.
Prolonged custody and lack of progress in trial justify granting bail, especially when co-accused with similar circumstances have been released.
The principle of parity in bail applies when co-accused face identical charges, warranting similar treatment unless distinct circumstances exist.
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.
Bail applications must consider trial progress and the defendant's history; prolonged detention without trial progress can justify granting bail.
The court determined that prior bail grants for co-accused and lack of substantial evidence justified the appellant's release on bail.
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 Principle of Parity in bail applications requires careful consideration of the specific roles and allegations against the accused, rather than a simplistic comparison with co-accused.
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
