Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
10. In such circumstances referred to above, we have two appeals before us one filed by the accused MD Imran @ D.C. Guddu who came to be arrested and is in judicial custody and the connected appeal has been filed by the State of Jharkhand being aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court releasing the other two co-accused on anticipatory bail.
11. Since the three accused have now been summoned, the trial against them will have to proceed afresh. We are informed that charges have been framed.
12. We heard Mr. Samant Singh, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh & Mr. Ganesh Khanna, the learned counsel appearing for the respective accused persons and Ms. Pragya Baghel, the learned counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand.
13. We looked into the matter threadbare. We also looked into the oral evidence of the eyewitnesses on the strength of which the three accused have now been summoned to face the trial for the offence of murder.
14. 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. 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.
15. The other two co-accused namely MD Samsher and MD Arshad respectively are already on anticipatory bail since 02.07.2025. We [2026] 2 S.C.R. Md Imran @ D.C. Guddu v. The State of Jharkhand are informed that they have been appearing before the trial court on all dates.
16. Since the matter is at large before the trial court, we need not observe anything further.
17. It is ordered that MD Imran @ D.C. Guddu shall be released on bail subject to terms and conditions that the trial court may deem fit to impose.
18. So far as the other two accused are concerned, they are already on anticipatory bail. No case is made out by the State for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
19. In the result, the appeal filed by MD Imran @ D.C Guddu stands allowed and the appeal filed by the State of Jharkhand stands dismissed.
20. We make it clear that all the three accused shall regularly appear before the trial court and cooperate in expeditious disposal of the trial.
21. We further make it clear that the observations in this order are only for the purpose of deciding the bail application of MD Imran @ D.C. Guddu as well as for consideration of the State appeal against the order granting anticipatory bail to Md. Shamsher Alam and Md. Arshad. The trial court will proceed in accordance with law and the trial court will not be influenced by the observations in this order.
22. Pending Application(s) if any shall stand disposed of. Result of the case: Appeal filed by the accused allowed. Appeal filed by the State dismissed. †Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain