Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, JJ
Menarul Shekh – 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 19.11.2024 passed in B.P. No. 300 of 2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur in connection with Pakur (Town) P. S. Case No. 176 of 2024, registered under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 118(2) of the BNS and 27 of the Arms act and under Section 3,4 of the Explosive Substance Act , pending in the Court of SDJM, Pakur, 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 on the basis of omnibus and general allegation, the appellants have been implicated in this case. Even the appellant nos. 2 to 5 are not named in the FIR and were not present at the place of occurrence.
3. Submission has been made although the case has been registered under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act also but there is no recovery of any explosive substance so as to attract the penal offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act .
4. It has been submitted that the present case has been lodged in retaliati
The absence of evidence, such as recovery of explosives, and prolonged custody are critical factors for granting bail under serious charges.
The court granted bail due to prolonged custody and lack of serious injury charges, setting aside the lower court's rejection based on insufficient grounds.
The court ruled that prior efforts to secure bail do not merit reconsideration when serious allegations and an ongoing investigation persist, and pre-arrest bail was denied.
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.
Bail can be denied based on sufficient witness corroboration and prior criminal history, despite not being named in the FIR.
The absence of evidence linking the appellant to the crime justifies the granting of bail, emphasizing the need for substantial proof in bail matters.
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 prolonged judicial custody and slow trial progress justified granting bail, balancing the rights of the accused with the interests of justice.
An appeal lies under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act, 2008 against a Special Court's order on bail, highlighting the maintainability of such petitions.
The court determined that prior bail grants for co-accused and lack of substantial evidence justified the appellant's release on bail.
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
