Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Md. Sazzad @ Md. Sazzad Miyan – 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 30.11.2024 passed in A.B.P. No. 558 of 2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Madhupur (Deoghar) in connection with Madhupur P. S. Case No. 252 of 2023, registered under Sections 147/148/149/341/323/325/307/379 of the Indian Penal Code, 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act and 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the court of learned ACJM, Madhupur, whereby and whereunder the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants have been rejected.
2. It has been contended that earlier the appellants had preferred anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 986 of 2024, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 22.10.2024.
3. It has been contended on behalf of appellants that the appellants were neither apprehended at the place of occurrence nor any arms and ammunitions were recovered from the exclusive and conscious possession of the appellants.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted no charge-sheet has been submitted against the appellants. However, charge-sheet has been submitted against other accused wherein the police has
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 court ruled that an applicant for bail must show a prima facie case for the privilege of pre-arrest bail, particularly in contexts lacking incriminating evidence against them.
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 principle of parity in granting bail dictates that if co-accused in identical circumstances receive bail, the same should apply to the appellant.
Anticipatory bail should be granted when similarly situated co-accused are released, emphasizing equitable treatment in judicial proceedings.
The court established that the principle of parity in bail decisions requires similar treatment for co-accused in identical circumstances.
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 can grant bail if the appellant is in custody for an extended period without charge framing, despite serious allegations and criminal antecedents.
The court upheld the principle of parity in granting anticipatory bail, allowing the appellants bail based on their similar situation to co-accused who were previously granted 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
