Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, SANJAY PRASAD
Masi Tigga @ Massi Tigga S/o Late Abraham Tigga – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21 (4) of the NATIONAL INVESTIGATION ACT is directed against the order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the Sri. Shambhu Lal Shaw, learned Sessions Judge in M.C.A No. 1184 of 2024 by which the prayer for grant of bail of the appellant in connection with Piparwar P.S. Case no. 06/2024 registered under Sections 25(1-A)/25 (1-B)a/26/35 of ARMS ACT , under Section 17 (i)(ii) of CLA Act and under Section 16 /17/18/20 of U.A.P. Act, has been rejected.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the name of the present appellant has only been surfaced in the instant case on the basis of the confessional statement made by the co-accused.
3. It has been submitted that from very possession of the present appellant nothing incriminating has been recovered and further the appellant has not been arrested on the spot and he is in custody since 29.04.2024.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that since the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the learned special court and therefore the instant appeal has been preferred.
5. While on the other hand, Mr. Vishwanath
The court ruled that prior criminal history and confessions regarding involvement in serious offenses justify the denial of bail, prioritizing public safety and ongoing investigations.
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 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 that the lack of commitment and framing of charges, along with previous acquittal, justified granting bail.
The court determined that prior bail grants for co-accused and lack of substantial evidence justified the appellant's release on bail.
Bail can be denied based on sufficient witness corroboration and prior criminal history, despite not being named in the FIR.
Bail denied due to serious allegations and appellant's criminal history, despite claims of false implication.
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.
A bail application can be denied based on the severity of charges, potential evidence tampering, and the accused's extensive criminal history, highlighting the need for judicial caution in organized ....
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
