Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR, JJ
Juber Khan @ Rahul, S/o. Late Abdul Gaffar – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act , 2008 against the order dated 22.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Simdega in Misc. Cri. Application No.248 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Sessions Trial Case No.69/2023 arising out of T.Tanger P.S. Case No.7 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No.230 of 2023, registered for the offence under Sections 363, 370(4), 341, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 75/81 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act , has been rejected.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that two identically placed accused persons, namely, Sunila Dungdung and Priska Soreng @ Prisca Soreng have been directed to be released on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.05.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.263 of 2024 and order dated 13.05.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.54 of 2024 respectively.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant of Cr. Appeal (DB) No.54 of 2024 has been allowed to be released on bail on the ground of custo
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.
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 principle of parity in bail applies when co-accused face identical charges, warranting similar treatment unless distinct circumstances exist.
The court emphasized the right to a fair trial under Article 21, allowing bail due to prolonged custody and limited witness examination.
Judicial discretion in bail matters requires equitable treatment; the custody of an accused may not be justified when co-accused facing similar charges are granted bail.
Appellate courts can intervene in bail decisions where delays in trial proceedings occur, especially when co-accused are granted bail under similar serious allegations.
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 principle of parity in bail decisions requires similar culpability; specific allegations against the appellant preclude bail.
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
