While granting bail to an accused in an Arms Act case, the Supreme Court has held that when a person is added as an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and that person is ultimately arrested and prays for bail, the relevant consideration of the court while considering his plea should be strong and cogent evidence rather than mere probability of his complicity.

The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the order passed by the Jharkhand High Court by which the bail application filed by the appellant in a case registered under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-B)A,26, 27, 35 of the Arms Act came to be rejected.The State of Jharkhand had also filed an appeal against the order granting anticipatory bail to two accused persons.

The Division Bench of Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan held, “When a person is added as an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 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 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.

Factual Background

The appellant was one of the accused persons named in the FIR lodged by the father of the deceased. The FIR was registered against nine accused persons. At the end of the investigation, the chargesheet came to be filed only against three accused persons, whereas the closure report was filed so far as the other six co-accused were concerned. In the course of the trial, the eye-witnesses to the incident, who are all family members of the deceased, deposed as regards the involvement of all nine accused persons originally named in the FIR.

In 2022, the first informant preferred an application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., before the trial court, with a prayer that the other six co-accused who were dropped by the police should be added and summoned as accused to face the trial. The application was partly allowed, and out of the six accused who were dropped, three accused persons were summoned. The appellant came to be arrested pursuant to a non-bailable warrant issued against him. Insofar as the respondents in the connected matters were concerned, they went before the High Court and prayed for anticipatory bail. The High Court granted them anticipatory bail.

Reasoning

Explaining how the bail application of a person added as an accused under Section 319 CrPC is to be considered, 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.”

The Bench found that the other two co-accused were already on anticipatory bail, and they had been appearing before the trial court on all dates. “Since the matter is at large before the trial court, we need not observe anything further”, it added.

The Bench thus ordered the appellant to be released on bail subject to terms and conditions that the trial court may deem fit to impose.“No case is made out by the State for cancellation of anticipatory bail”, the order read.

Thus, allowing the appellant’s appeal and dismissing the appeal filed by the State, the Bench held, “We make it clear that all the three accused shall regularly appear before the trial court and cooperate in expeditious disposal of the trial.”

Cause Title: Md Imran @ D.C. Guddu v. The State of Jharkhand (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 36)

Click here to read/download Judgment





Justice JB PardiwalaJustice K.V. Viswanathan

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.