Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR, JJ
Sanjay Kumar, S/o Mahendra Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
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.1276 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, 120B , 435 and 436 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 neither present at the place of occurrence nor any allegations have been leveled against him.
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, have been granted the privilege of ant
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 established that the principle of parity in bail decisions requires similar treatment for co-accused in identical circumstances.
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.
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 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 determined that prior bail grants for co-accused and lack of substantial evidence justified the appellant's release on bail.
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 ruled that the denial of bail was unjustified as similar co-accused were granted bail or acquitted, necessitating similar treatment for the appellant.
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.
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
