Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, NAVNEET KUMAR, JJ.
Md. Dastgir @ Md. Dasgir @ Md. Dastagir - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1566 of 2024
Decided on : 09-01-2025
(A) National Investigation Agency Act - Section 21(4) - Indian Penal Code - Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 333, 337, 338, 353, 427, 307, 153-A, 188, 295-A, 116, 120B - Explosive Substance Act - Sections 3/4 - Arms Act - Section 27 - Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act - Section 3 - Pre-arrest bail - The appellant, having no criminal antecedents, sought pre-arrest bail, which was initially denied. The court noted that co-accused in identical situations had been granted anticipatory bail. (Paras 1, 4, 6)
(B) Bail - The court emphasized the principle of parity, stating that since identically placed co-accused had been granted bail, the appellant should not be treated differently. (Paras 6, 10)
Facts of the case:
The appeal was against the rejection of pre-arrest bail for the appellant in a case involving multiple serious charges under various laws. The appellant claimed innocence and lack of prior criminal involvement.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellant's situation was similar to that of granted co-accused and thus quashed the denial of bail.
Issues: The main issue was whether to grant pre-arrest bail based on the principle of parity with co-accused granted bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that there was no reason to treat the appellant differently from co-accused who were similarly situated and had received bail.
Result: The appeal was allowed, and pre-arrest bail was granted.
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, is directed against the order dated 23.09.2024 passed in A.B.P. No.1153 of 2024 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Jamshedpur, in connection with Kadma P.S. Case No.54 of 2023, registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 333, 337, 338, 353, 427, 307, 153-A, 188, 295-A, 116 and 120B of the IPC, Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the appellant has been rejected.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the appellant is absolutely innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant case.
3. It has further been contended that there is no any criminal antecedent against the appellant as he has never been involved or indulged in any other antisocial activities.
4. It has also been contended that the identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Aftab Khan and Ors., Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Gupta & Ors., Nandjee Prasad, Md. Imran @ Raju & Ors. and Md. Faiyaz have been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 26.02.2024, 14.05.2024 and 13.08.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.2024 of 2023, 1722 of 2023, 1979 of 2023 (for all three appeals, common order dated 26.02.2024), 636 of 2024 and 740 of 2024 respectively.
5. While on the other hand, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. However, he is fair enough to admit the fact that the case of the aforesaid co-accused persons as referred above, who have already been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court, are identically placed to that of the case of the present appellant.
6. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court, is of the view that identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Aftab Khan and Ors., Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Gupta & Ors., Nandjee Prasad, Md. Imran @ Raju & Ors. and Md. Faiyaz have been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 26.02.2024, 14.05.2024 and 13.08.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.2024 of 2023, 1722 of 2023, 1979 of 2023 (for all three appeals, common order dated 26.02.2024), 636 of 2024 and 740 of 2024 respectively, therefore, there is no reason to take distinct view, so far as the case of the present appellant is concerned.
7. Considering the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.09.2024 passed in A.B.P. No.1153 of 2024 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Jamshedpur, is hereby, quashed and set aside.
9. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.
10. On consideration of the aforesaid facts, this Court is inclined to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the appellant. The appellant, above named, accordingly, is directed to surrender before the learned court below within 10 days and on his surrender, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M., Jamshedpur, in connection with Kadma P.S. Case No.54 of 2023, subject to the conditions that the appellant shall co-operate in the trial and shall not absent himself on the date fixed without any cogent cause. In case of non-cooperation in trial, it will be left open upon the prosecuting agency to move before the concerned court for cancellation of bail bond.
11. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.
The court established that the principle of parity in bail decisions requires similar treatment for co-accused in identical circumstances.
The principle of parity in granting bail dictates that if co-accused in identical circumstances receive bail, the same should apply to the appellant.
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.
Anticipatory bail should be granted when similarly situated co-accused are released, emphasizing equitable treatment in judicial proceedings.
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 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.
Anticipatory bail can only be granted in exceptional circumstances where the applicant is prima facie falsely implicated, considering the nature of accusations and facts of the case.
The court determined that prior bail grants for co-accused and lack of substantial evidence justified the appellant's release on 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 court ruled that the denial of bail was unjustified as similar co-accused were granted bail or acquitted, necessitating similar treatment for the appellant.
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
