IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, NAVNEET KUMAR, JJ.
Manoj Rai @ Rajesh Rai, S/o. Sahdeo Rai - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1559 of 2024
Decided On : 02-01-2025
(A) National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Sections 21(4) and 21(5) - Delay in filing appeal - Delay of 41 days condoned based on reasons provided in the interlocutory application - Appeal for regular bail - Appellant claimed innocence and cited co-accused's bail grant as precedent - Court found no reason to differ from the previous decision regarding co-accused's bail and noted the appellant's prolonged custody since 23.08.2023 - Impugned order quashed. (Paras 3, 6, 9, 10)
(B) Bail - Grant of bail - Court emphasized that similar cases should be treated similarly unless distinct circumstances are present. (Paras 6, 11)
Facts of the case:
The appeal was filed for condoning a delay in seeking bail after the rejection of the appellant's prayer for regular bail in a serious criminal case involving multiple sections of law.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order was quashed, allowing bail to the appellant under specified conditions.
Issues: The main issues included the justification for bail based on the status of co-accused and the appellant's prolonged custody.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that similar cases should be treated consistently, and the appellant's prolonged detention warranted bail.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
I.A. No.12728 of 2024
1. The instant interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 21(5) of the N.I.A. Act for condoning the delay of 41 days in preferring the instant appeal.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Considering the reason assigned in the interlocutory application and taking into consideration the purport of Section 21(5) of the National Investigation Agency Act , 2008, the delay of 41 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.
4. Accordingly, I.A. No.12728 of 2024 stands allowed.
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1559 of 2024
1. The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act , is directed against the order dated 13.08.2024 passed in MCA No.1473 of 2024, in connection with S.T. Case No.604 of 2023, arising out of Pirtand P.S. Case No.12 of 2010, registered for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the IPC, Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act and Section 13 of the U.A.(P) Act, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for regular 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 the charge-sheet has already been submitted and the appellant is languishing in custody since 23.08.2023.
4. It has also been contended that the identically placed co-accused person, namely, Nabi Mian @ Shamsher @ Master has already been directed to be released on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.10.2022 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.892 of 2022.
5. While on the other hand, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. However, she is fair enough to admit the fact that the case of the aforesaid co-accused person as referred above, who has already been directed to be released on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court, is identically placed to that of the case of the present appellant.
6. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court, is of the view that identically placed co-accused person, namely, Nabi Mian @ Shamsher @ Master has already been directed to be released on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.10.2022 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.892 of 2022, therefore, there is no reason to take distinct view, so far as the case of the present appellant is concerned.
7. Moreover, the appellant is languishing in custody since 23.08.2023.
8. Considering the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.08.2024 passed in MCA No.1473 of 2024 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Giridih, is hereby quashed and set aside.
10. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.
11. In consequence thereof, the appellant, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned District & Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Giridih, in connection with S.T. Case No.604 of 2023, arising out of Pirtand P.S. Case No.12 of 2010, subject to the conditions that the appellant shall co-operate in the trial and shall not absent himself on the date fixed without any cogent cause; and shall not commit offence of the like nature. In failure, the learned court shall have liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law so that trial, be not hindered and further that one of the bailors should be close relative of the appellant, which is to be accompanied by affidavit justifying that such bailor is close relative of the appellant.
12. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.
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.
The principle of parity in bail applies when co-accused face identical charges, warranting similar treatment unless distinct circumstances exist.
Prolonged custody and lack of progress in trial justify granting bail, especially when co-accused with similar circumstances have been released.
Offence of Attempt to Murder - Bail Application - Power under Section 439 cannot be exercised when there is specific provision in the statute for filing appeal before High Court against an order of g....
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 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....
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 upheld that a prima facie case against the accused under UAPA provisions justifies denial of bail, despite claims of trial delays.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.