The Supreme Court has granted bail to a man who was summoned as an accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a murder case, while reiterating that courts must look for “strong and cogent evidence” before denying bail to persons added as accused during trial.
The bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan has held that the “court must be satisfied that there is strong and cogent evidence of the person’s complicity at the threshold i.e. much higher than that required for framing charges against the original accused.”
The appeal arose from an order of the Jharkhand High Court, which had rejected petitioner’s bail application in connection with a 2018 murder case registered at Daily Market Police Station. The case involved offences under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the IPC, along with provisions of the Arms Act.
The prosecution case was that although nine accused were initially named in the FIR, the police filed a chargesheet only against three, submitting a closure report for the remaining six. During trial, eyewitnesses, who were family members of the deceased, implicated all nine accused. On an application filed under Section 319 CrPC, the trial court summoned three additional accused, including the petitioner, while declining to summon the remaining three.
The petitioner was arrested pursuant to a non-bailable warrant, while the other two newly summoned co-accused were granted anticipatory bail by the High Court. The State challenged the grant of anticipatory bail, while the petitioner approached the Supreme Court seeking regular bail.
Allowing the petitioner’s appeal and dismissing the State’s challenge, the Supreme Court held that when a person is added as an accused under Section 319 CrPC, the standard for considering bail lies higher than mere prima facie satisfaction, in short of “satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted would lead to conviction.” The Court clarified that factors such as the nature of the offence, quality of evidence, and likelihood of absconding or tampering must be carefully weighed.
Consequently, the court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions to be imposed by the trial court. Further, taking note that the co-accused were already on anticipatory bail and were regularly appearing before the trial court, the grantecourt held that no case of cancellation of anticipatory bail is made against the other 2 accused. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail stage and would not influence the trial on merits.
Appearances
Petitioner- Ms. Pragya Baghel, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Langar, AOR Mr. Sujeet Kumar Chaubey, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Singh, AOR Mr. Samant Singhi, Adv. Mr. Rohit Singh, Adv. Ms. Anu H. Kirutthika, Adv.
Respondent- Ms. Pallavi Langar, AOR Ms. Pragya Baghel, Adv. Mr. Sujeet Kumar Chaubey, Adv. Mr. Ganesh Khanna, Adv. Mr. Satyabeer Singh, Adv. Mr. Gauraw Kumar, Adv. Mr. Avinash Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Bhushan, AOR
