Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, JJ
Basant Paswan – 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 01.02.2025 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No. 211 of 2025 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chatra in connection with Pratappur P. S. Case No. 68 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. No. 993 of 2009, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149 , 307 of the Indian Penal Code ; Sectin 17(i) (ii) CLA Act ; Section 27 of the Arms act; Section 3/4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act and section 10/13 of the UAP 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 the appellant is the Assistant Teacher since 2006 having no concerned with the extremist group and has voluntarily surrendered before the trial Court on 24.01.2025 and since then he is languishing in judicial custody.
3. Further, in the FIR, there is no specific allegation of firing which can be attributed against the appellant and no incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious possession of the appellant.
4. Furthermore, the other co-accused persons, namely, Arbind Paswan had been granted 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.
The principle of parity in bail applies when co-accused face identical charges, warranting similar treatment unless distinct circumstances exist.
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 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 emphasized the principle of parity in bail decisions, allowing bail for the appellant due to prolonged custody and similarity to co-accused cases.
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 decisions requires similar culpability; specific allegations against the appellant preclude bail.
Court emphasized the principles of bail, including the significance of parity and the duration of custody, leading to a decision to grant bail despite criminal antecedents.
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
