IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
Jugeshwar Mahto @ Yogeshwar Mahto – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The instant appeal under section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has been directed against the order dated 19.12.2023 passed by the learned A.J.C.-XVIII cum Special Judge, ATS, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No.3537 of 2023 whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the appellant in connection with ATS Case No.09 of 2023 corresponding to ATS P.S. Case No.07 of 2023 registered for the offence under Sections 353 , 332, 333, 307 and 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , Section 27 of the ARMS ACT and Section 16 , 17 and 20 of the U.A.P. Act, has been rejected.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where the appellant has falsely been implicated and even though he has been found to be in judicial custody, the allegation has been levelled against him and, as such, it is nothing but false implication of the present appellant.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that one co-accused has been directed to be released on bail.
4. He has further submitted that identically placed co- accused persons, namely, Hari Tiwari @ Dhirendra Tiwari and even Aman Sao the other member of the gang and one Ashok Rai have wi
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 ....
Prolonged custody and lack of progress in trial justify granting bail, especially when co-accused with similar circumstances have been released.
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 determined that prior bail grants for co-accused and lack of substantial evidence justified the appellant's release on bail.
The principle of parity in bail applies when co-accused face identical charges, warranting similar treatment unless distinct circumstances exist.
Bail denied due to serious allegations and appellant's criminal history, despite claims of false implication.
Prolonged judicial custody without trial violates the right to a speedy trial under Article 21, making it a fit case for bail despite multiple pending criminal cases.
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 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.
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.