The Supreme Court of India has reiterated that bail for an accused summoned during trial under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be decided on the basis of mere suspicion or probability and must rest on strong and cogent evidence indicating complicity.
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan was dealing with two connected criminal appeals arising out of a murder case from Jharkhand.
One appeal was filed by Md Imran alias D.C. Guddu, who had been arrested after being summoned as an accused under Section 319 CrPC, while the other appeal was filed by the State of Jharkhand challenging the grant of anticipatory bail to two similarly situated co accused.
Background
The FIR in the case named nine persons for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the IPC along with provisions of the Arms Act.
After investigation, chargesheet was filed only against three accused, while a closure report was submitted in respect of the remaining six.
During the course of trial, eyewitnesses, who were family members of the deceased, deposed about the involvement of all nine persons named in the FIR.
On the basis of this oral evidence, the informant moved an application under Section 319 CrPC.
The trial court partly allowed the application and summoned three additional accused, including Md Imran. The order was not challenged and attained finality.
Md Imran was arrested pursuant to a non bailable warrant. The other two summoned accused approached the High Court and were granted anticipatory bail.
This led to the present appeals.
Supreme Court’s Observations
While considering the question of bail, the Supreme Court explained the standard to be applied in cases where an accused is added under Section 319 CrPC. The Court observed:
“When a person is added as an accused under Section 319 CrPC and that person is ultimately arrested and prays for bail, the relevant consideration at the end of the court while considering his plea for bail should be the strong and cogent evidence than mere probability of his complicity.”
The Bench clarified that the test is higher than the one applied at the stage of framing of charge. It stated:
“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.”
The Court further held that while deciding bail applications of such accused, courts must assess factors including the nature of the offence, quality of evidence, and the likelihood of the accused absconding or tampering with evidence.
Bail Granted, State Appeal Dismissed
Taking note of the fact that the other two co accused were already on anticipatory bail and had been regularly appearing before the trial court, the Supreme Court found no reason to deny bail to Md Imran.
Accordingly, it directed that he be released on bail on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the trial court.
The Bench also declined to interfere with the order granting anticipatory bail to the other co accused, observing:
“No case is made out by the State for cancellation of anticipatory bail.”
Clarification
The Court clarified that its observations were confined only to the consideration of bail and would not affect the merits of the trial.
It directed all three accused to cooperate with the trial and appear regularly before the trial court.
Case Details
- Case Title: Md Imran alias D.C. Guddu vs State of Jharkhand
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Date of Judgment: 7 January 2026
- Appellant: Md Imran alias D.C. Guddu
- Respondent: State of Jharkhand
- Co Accused: Md Samsher & Md Arshad
- Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala & Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Follow The Legal QnA For More Updates…
