Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ
Abhisekh Kasera @ Abhishek Kumar Kasera – 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 04.07.2024 passed in M.C.A No. 730 of 2024 arising out S.T. No. 217 of 2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Chaibasa, registered under Sections 302/34 , 120B IPC ; 27/25((1-a),25(1-B)A/26,35 of the Arms Act and 3/4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act ; pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Chaibasa, 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 bail application of the present appellant has been rejected on earlier occasion but subsequent thereto, the appellant has remained in jail custody for about 1 and 1/2 years and still the substantial number of witnesses are to be examined since out of 32 witnesses only 02 witnesses have been examined as yet. It has been submitted that although consideration has been given on merit but the implication of the present appellant is based upon 3rd confessional statement given by Satyavan Pradhan and no recovery of any incriminating material said to be used in the commission of c
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 principle of parity in bail applies when co-accused face identical charges, warranting similar treatment unless distinct circumstances exist.
Prolonged custody and lack of progress in trial justify granting bail, especially when co-accused with similar circumstances have been released.
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 decisions requires similar culpability; specific allegations against the appellant preclude bail.
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 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 may be granted when an accused has served significant time in custody without trial progress, especially if co-accused face lesser sentences.
The court determined that prior bail grants for co-accused and lack of substantial evidence justified the appellant's release on bail.
Prolonged judicial custody without trial violates the right to a speedy trial under Article 21, making it a fit case for bail despite multiple pending criminal cases.
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
