Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, NAVNEET KUMAR
Harelal Mahato @ Hare Lal Mahato – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1081 of 2024
1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigating Agency Act, 2008 is directed the order dated 23.07.2024 passed in Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 244 of 2024 by learned Principal District & Sessions Judge at Seraikella in connection with Nimdih P.S. Case No. 0019 of 2024 registered under Sections 4 /5 of the Explosive Substance Act and under Sections 25(1-B)(a)/26 of the ARMS ACT , pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, whereby and whereunder the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant has been rejected.
2. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that it is a case where the order impugned needs to be interfered with reason being that save and except the confessional statement of the co-accused, namely, Basudev Mahato, there is no incriminating material or any overt act has been said to be there even if entire prosecution will be taken into consideration in entirety.
3. It has further been submitted that charge-sheet has already been submitted with respect to the co-accused person, namely, Basudev Mahato and charge has been framed aga
The court ruled that an applicant for bail must show a prima facie case for the privilege of pre-arrest bail, particularly in contexts lacking incriminating evidence against them.
The court ruled that prior efforts to secure bail do not merit reconsideration when serious allegations and an ongoing investigation persist, and pre-arrest bail was denied.
The determination of whether seized material constitutes explosive substance and the consideration of confessions of co-accused can be crucial in deciding on the grant of anticipatory bail.
The court established that the principle of parity in bail decisions requires similar treatment for co-accused in identical circumstances.
The principle of parity in granting bail dictates that if co-accused in identical circumstances receive bail, the same should apply to the appellant.
Anticipatory bail should be granted when similarly situated co-accused are released, emphasizing equitable treatment in judicial proceedings.
The absence of evidence, such as recovery of explosives, and prolonged custody are critical factors for granting bail under serious charges.
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
