| |
CDJ 2026 SC 318
|
| Court : Supreme Court of India |
| Case No : Criminal Appeal No. 253 of 2026 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 19540 of 2025] |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH |
| Parties : Jamna Prasad Asati Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: ------ For the Respondent: ----- |
| Date of Judgment : 15-01-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 34 -
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. Catch Words:
- Bail
- Parity
- Trial
- Appeal
- Release
3. Summary:
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed the appellant’s bail application. The appellant was arrested under IPC sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34. Only one of sixteen prosecution witnesses had been examined, indicating a protracted trial. The appellant claimed parity with a co‑accused who had been granted bail. The reviewing court found the appellant entitled to the same relief and set aside the lower court’s order. He was ordered to be released on bail, subject to conditions and bond. The court clarified that the bail order does not constitute a finding on the merits. The appeal was allowed.
4. Conclusion:
Appeal Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
1. Leave granted.
2. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, by the impugned judgment and order dated 21st April, 2025, has dismissed the appellant's application for bail.
3. The appellant was arrested on 01st September, 2024 in connection with FIR No.0161 of 2024 dated 29th April, 2024 registered at Police Station Tikamgarh Dehat, District Tikamgarh under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
5. Trial is in progress. Evidence of only one witness out of the sixteen witnesses the prosecution proposes to examine to drive home the charges against the appellant has been recorded. Trial is, thus, likely to take time to conclude.
6. Insofar as the claim of parity raised by learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, we find that this Court has granted the relief of bail to a co-accused vide order dated 14th November, 2025 in Criminal Appeal No.4865/2025 @ SLP (Crl.) No.15874/2025. Appellant does not stand on different footing and, therefore, he is entitled to claim parity.
7. Taking an overall view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant need not be detained in custody any longer and that he could be admitted to an order for release on bail pending trial.
8. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and order.
9. Appellant shall be released on bail, subject to furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court and subject to such other terms and conditions as may be imposed by it.
10. Needless to observe, the appellant shall not, directly or indirectly, by making inducement, threat or promise, dissuade any person acquainted with the facts of the case from disclosing such facts to the court.
11. In the event there is any breach of the terms and conditions for grant of bail, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the appellant.
12. It is also ordered that the appellant shall diligently attend proceedings of the trial, unless exempted. If he abstains from attending the proceedings without justifiable cause, that could also be seen as breach of the conditions for grant of bail and the trial court will be free to pass appropriate orders.
13. We clarify that the observations made in this order and grant of bail will not be treated as findings on the merits of the case.
14. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed on the aforesaid terms.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
|
| |
