Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Amit Singh @ Tuntun – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned APP appearing for the State has sought for permission of this Court to file counter affidavit in the Court.
2. Permission, as sought for, is allowed.
3. The instant appeal filed, under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 02.12.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, IV, Chatra in Misc. Cr. Application No. 1571 of 2024, whereby the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected in connection with Rajpur P. S. Case No. 94 of 2019 corresponding to S.T. Case No. 421 of 2024, registered under Section 124(A) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 17 of the CLA Act, however, cognizance has been taken under Section 124 A of the IPC and Section 17(1)(2) of the CLA Act.
4. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that the one Satish Chandra Bharti was apprehended by the police, from whose possession the incriminating articles were recovered, and on whose confessional statement the name of the present appellant and others has surfaced. On the basis of confessional statement of co-accused, Satish Chandra Bharti, it has come that the appellant used to help the extremists but th
The court established that mere confessional statements from co-accused, without direct evidence, may not suffice to deny bail, especially when similar co-accused have been granted bail under analogo....
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 principle of parity in bail applies when co-accused face identical charges, warranting similar treatment unless distinct circumstances exist.
The court emphasized that the lack of commitment and framing of charges, along with previous acquittal, justified granting 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.
Bail may be granted if the accused is named in a co-accused's disclosure statement without corroborative evidence, especially after substantial custody time, aligning with the right to a speedy trial....
Bail can be granted when an accused is named in a co-accused's disclosure statement but no recovery is made, especially if the trial is likely to be prolonged.
Bail can be granted when an accused is named in a co-accused's disclosure statement without recovery, especially if they are a first-time offender and the trial is delayed.
A habitual offender under the NDPS Act is not entitled to anticipatory bail based on weak evidence from 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
