Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, NAVNEET KUMAR, JJ
Rajkumar Kherwar @ Sunil Kherwar, S/o Laldeo Kherwar – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act , 2008 against the order dated 09.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Gumla in B.P. No.283 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with S.T. Case No.324 of 2023 arising out of Bishunpur P.S. Case No.05 of 2021 corresponding to Spt. G.R. Case No.151 of 2023, registered for the offence under Sections 121 , 121(A) , 124(A) and 386 of the Indian Penal Code , Section 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act and Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act , has been rejected.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that there is no material available for implication of the present appellant in the present case but even then he has been implicated. The implication is only based upon the confessional statement of co-accused Anil Kherwar .
3. The appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 07.08.2023,
4. The ground has been taken that the identically placed accused person, namely, Indradev Kherwar has been directed to be released on bail by this Court vide order dated 17.05.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.247 of
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.
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 emphasized that the lack of commitment and framing of charges, along with previous acquittal, justified granting bail.
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 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 principle of parity in bail applies when co-accused face identical charges, warranting similar treatment unless distinct circumstances exist.
The principle of parity in bail decisions requires similar culpability; specific allegations against the appellant preclude bail.
Appellate courts can intervene in bail decisions where delays in trial proceedings occur, especially when co-accused are granted bail under similar serious allegations.
Bail can be denied based on sufficient witness corroboration and prior criminal history, despite not being named in the FIR.
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
