Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
Hiro Rai – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
ORDER :
I.A. (Cr.) No. 1216 of 2025
1. The instant Interlocutory Application has been filed condonation of delay of 27 days in filing the appeal.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. In view of the reasons assigned in the application, the delay in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned.
4. Accordingly, Interlocutory Application, being I.A. No. 1216 of 2025, stands disposed of.
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 167 of 2025
5. The instant appeal filed, under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 08.08.2024 passed in B.P. No.433 of 2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in connection with Hirodih P. S. Case No. 84 of 2021, registered under Sections 370 , 371, 374/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE ; and Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice Act, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridh, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant, has been rejected.
6. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that the victims have not been recovered from the possession of the present appeal rather the victims have been recovered from the possession of one Vikash Rai @ Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Kumar Rai who has
The court held that the appellant, having no criminal history and being in custody since July 2024, is entitled to bail, especially as the victims were recovered from a co-accused who was granted bai....
Appellate courts can intervene in bail decisions where delays in trial proceedings occur, especially when co-accused are granted bail under similar serious allegations.
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.
The court emphasized the principle of treating similarly situated individuals consistently in bail matters, allowing bail based on co-accused's previous release and the appellant's prolonged custody.
Prolonged custody and lack of progress in trial justify granting bail, especially when co-accused with similar circumstances have been released.
Prolonged judicial custody without trial progress and lack of incriminating evidence can justify granting bail, emphasizing the right to timely justice under Article 21.
The court emphasized the right to a fair trial under Article 21, allowing bail due to prolonged custody and limited witness examination.
The court emphasized that the lack of commitment and framing of charges, along with previous acquittal, justified granting bail.
The principle of parity in bail decisions requires similar culpability; specific allegations against the appellant preclude bail.
The principle of parity in bail applies when co-accused face identical charges, warranting similar treatment unless distinct circumstances exist.
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
