Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ
Mehboob Ansari @ Mahbub Ansari, Son Of Basrudin Ansari – Appellant
Versus
The 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 29.10.2024 passed by learned Vacation Judge, Nagar Untari, Garhwa in Bail Petition No.14 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Ketar P.S. Case No.57 of 2024, registered for the offences under Sections 25(1-B)a , 25(1- AA ) , 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, has been rejected.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the recovery of the country made pistol, as per the prosecution story, is there said to be recovered from the possession of the present appellant. Therefore, no ingredient of Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act is there so far present appellant is concerned.
3. It has been contended that merely on the ground that on the confession of the present appellant, the other materials have been seized from the possession of other co-accused persons and therefore, the appellant has also been alleged to have been committed the offence under Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act.
4. It has been contended that the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 13.09.2024 while having no crimina
The court established that lack of criminal antecedents and prolonged judicial custody can justify the granting of bail despite allegations of serious offences.
The court found insufficient evidence to justify the denial of bail, emphasizing the lack of recovery from the appellant's possession and the absence of victim testimony.
The court emphasized the necessity of credible witness identification and the examination of all relevant evidence in criminal proceedings.
Bail granted due to prolonged detention and completion of investigation despite serious allegations under the Arms Act.
The court emphasized the importance of considering the duration of custody when granting bail, alongside the evaluation of evidence and procedural fairness in criminal convictions.
Arms - Illegal possession of - Accused having no criminal antecedents - Subject to custodial interrogation - Bail granted
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.
Bail may be granted if there is no evidence obstructing justice or likelihood of flight, especially in prolonged incarceration cases.
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.
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
