Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Amarjeet Yadav @ Lakhan Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant appeal filed, under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 31.07.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Appl. No. 1049 of 2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Chatra in connection with B.Nagar P. S. Case No. 31 of 2022 arising out of S.T. Case No. 450 of 2023, registered under Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 17 of the CLA Act and Section 1 and 2 of the Criminal Probation act and Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act; whereby and whereunder, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant, has been rejected.
2. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that it is a case where the appellant has falsely been implicated and there is no direct or indirect evidence against the appellant to show his involvement in the alleged occurrence since the appellant is neither the member of extremist organization or anything has been recovered from the conscious possession of the appellant.
3. The appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 07.06.2023 and charge has been framed against the appellant on 06.02.2024 and since then there is no substantial progress in the trial.
4. There
Bail denied due to serious allegations and appellant's criminal history, despite claims of false implication.
Bail can be denied based on sufficient witness corroboration and prior criminal history, despite not being named in the FIR.
A bail application can be denied based on the severity of charges, potential evidence tampering, and the accused's extensive criminal history, highlighting the need for judicial caution in organized ....
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 court found insufficient evidence to justify the denial of bail, emphasizing the lack of recovery from the appellant's possession and the absence of victim testimony.
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.
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 court ruled that, under UAPA, bail cannot be granted where prima facie evidence establishes serious allegations against national security, emphasizing the heightened standard for bail in terroris....
The court ruled that prior criminal history and confessions regarding involvement in serious offenses justify the denial of bail, prioritizing public safety and ongoing investigations.
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
