The Supreme Court has held that when considering a bail plea of a person summoned as an additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the Court must be satisfied that there is “strong and cogent evidence” of complicity, a standard much higher than what is required for framing charges against an original accused.
The Division Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan passed this order while allowing the bail appeal of Md Imran @ D.C. Guddu and dismissing the appeal filed by the State of Jharkhand against the grant of anticipatory bail to co-accused Md Samsher and Md Arshad.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from Daily Market Police Station Case No. 46 of 2018, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 25(1-B)A/26/27/35 of the Arms Act. The First Information Report (FIR) initially named nine accused persons. However, upon the conclusion of the investigation, the police filed a chargesheet against only three accused and submitted a closure report regarding the remaining six.
During the course of the trial, eyewitnesses—who were family members of the deceased—deposed in 2020 and 2021 regarding the involvement of all nine accused originally named in the FIR. Based on this oral evidence, the first informant filed an application under Section 319 of the CrPC in 2022, praying that the six dropped co-accused be summoned to face trial.
The Trial Court partly allowed this application, summoning three of the six accused: Md Imran @ D.C. Guddu, Md Samsher, and Md Arshad. Subsequently, Md Imran was arrested pursuant to a non-bailable warrant. His bail application was rejected by the High Court of Jharkhand via an order dated April 8, 2025. Conversely, the other two summoned accused, Md Samsher and Md Arshad, approached the High Court and were granted anticipatory bail.
Arguments and Proceedings
The Supreme Court heard two connected appeals: one filed by Md Imran challenging the denial of bail, and the other filed by the State of Jharkhand challenging the grant of anticipatory bail to the co-accused.
The Counsel for the accused, Mr. Samant Singh, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, and Mr. Ganesh Khanna, and the Counsel for the State of Jharkhand, Ms. Pragya Baghel, were heard by the Bench. The Court also examined the oral evidence of the eyewitnesses on the strength of which the accused were summoned.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court laid down specific parameters for considering bail applications for accused persons summoned under Section 319 CrPC. The Bench emphasized that the relevant consideration should be “strong and cogent evidence than mere probability of his complicity.”
The Court observed:
“The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted would lead to conviction.”
Regarding the factors to be weighed, the Bench stated:
“The Court should weigh factors like the nature of the offence, the quality of the evidence against the new accused and the likelihood of the person absconding or tampering with evidence. In other words, 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.”
Decision
Applying these principles, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Md Imran @ D.C. Guddu. The Court ordered his release on bail subject to terms and conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court.
Regarding the State’s appeal against the anticipatory bail granted to Md Samsher and Md Arshad, the Court noted that they had been on bail since July 2, 2025, and were appearing before the Trial Court. The Bench held that “no case is made out by the State for cancellation of anticipatory bail” and dismissed the State’s appeal.
The Court clarified that since the three accused have been summoned, the trial against them will proceed afresh. It was further directed that the observations made in this order were solely for the purpose of deciding the bail applications and should not influence the Trial Court’s proceedings.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Md Imran @ D.C. Guddu v. The State of Jharkhand (with connected appeal)
- Case No.: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 12110/2025 and SLP (Crl) No. 19548/2025
- Coram: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
