IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR, JJ
Anil Oraon @ Katthu Oraon Son Of Late Chaitu Oraon – 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 10.07.2024 passed in B.P. No.508 of 2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III , Gumla, in connection with Sessions Trial (Spt.) Case No.06 of 2021, arising out of Gumla P.S. Case No.313 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No.906 of 2013 registered under Sections 307, 326 and 34 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act, by which, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant, has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is not named in the FIR and no recovery said to be there either from the physical or conscious possession of the present appellant.
3. It has been submitted that the learned court when has got no material showing implication of the present appellant as per the prosecution version, even then, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected by citing instance of pending eight criminal cases against him.
4. It has been contended that in all criminal cases, the appellant has been released on bail and one case has been disposed of. While, in Kotwali
The mere existence of pending criminal cases cannot justify the denial of bail without considering the accused's specific involvement in the crime.
Bail applications must consider trial progress and the defendant's history; prolonged detention without trial progress can justify granting 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.
Prolonged judicial custody without trial progress and lack of incriminating evidence can justify granting bail, emphasizing the right to timely justice under Article 21.
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 prolonged judicial custody and slow trial progress justified granting bail, balancing the rights of the accused with the interests of justice.
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 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.
The principle of parity in bail applies when co-accused face identical charges, warranting similar treatment unless distinct circumstances exist.
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.