Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR, JJ
Mirtunjay Kumar Yadav @ Dukhan @ Arunjay @ Mrityunjay Yadav – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The instant appeal filed underSection 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 , is directed against the order dated 08.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Palamau at Daltonganj, in B.P. No. 370 of 2024, by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Haidarnagar P.S. Case No.52 of 2024, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 385, 387, 435, 427, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 17 of C.L.A. Act and Sections 10/13 ofUAPA Act, has been rejected.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where the appellant has falsely been implicated merely over hearing the name of the appellant by the police personnel, who subsequently has been made informant to the present case. The appellant has been said to have the two criminal antecedents but, he has been acquitted in one case and in other case i.e. Hariharganj P.S. Case No.37 of 2019 is concerned, the appellant has already been directed to be released on bail vide order dated 20.08.2020 passed in B.A No.5099 of 2020.
3. So far as the status of the present case is concerned, it has not been committed yet and thereof, the charge has not been
The court emphasized that the lack of commitment and framing of charges, along with previous acquittal, justified granting bail.
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 court determined that prior bail grants for co-accused and lack of substantial evidence justified the appellant's release on bail.
Prolonged judicial custody without trial progress and lack of incriminating evidence can justify granting bail, emphasizing the right to timely justice under Article 21.
Bail applications must consider trial progress and the defendant's history; prolonged detention without trial progress can justify granting bail.
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.
Bail can be denied based on sufficient witness corroboration and prior criminal history, despite not being named in the FIR.
Appellate courts can intervene in bail decisions where delays in trial proceedings occur, especially when co-accused are granted bail under similar serious allegations.
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.
The principle of parity in bail decisions requires similar culpability; specific allegations against the appellant preclude 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
