IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Nikhil Mandal – 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 22.10.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 2678 of 2024 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi in connection with Dhurwa P. S. Case No. 25 of 2007 (S) corresponding to G.R. No. 441 of 2007 converted to S.T.No. 170 of 2024, registered under Sections 419/420/489(a)(b)/120B of the Indian Penal Code; the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken mainly the ground that co-accused persons, namely Braj Mohan Mistry and Ibrahim Mian has also faced trial in connection with Dhurwa P.S. Case No. 25 of 2007 and after trial they were acquitted by the criminal court of competent jurisdiction vide order dated 10.01.2020 in S.T. No. 64(A)/2008. Furthermore, other co-accused persons, namely Binod Kumar Sahu, Rajendra Pd. Sao, Mohsin Mumtaz, Kishore Kumar, Ainul Ansari, Chandrika Pd. Gupta, Md. Anwar, Bhola Ansar @ Kalim Ansari, Anish Ansari and Sadhan Kumar Mandal also faced trial in connection with Dhurwa P.S. Case No. 25 of 2007 corresponding to G.R. No. 441 of 200
Bail may be granted when an accused has served significant time in custody without trial progress, especially if co-accused face lesser sentences.
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.
Prolonged custody and lack of progress in trial justify granting bail, especially when co-accused with similar circumstances have been released.
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.
Appellate courts can intervene in bail decisions where delays in trial proceedings occur, especially when co-accused are granted bail under similar serious allegations.
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.
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.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.