New Delhi: The Supreme Court has laid down an important principle for granting bail to persons added as accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure during the course of trial, holding that the test to be applied is “more than a prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to the extent that the evidence, if it goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction.”
A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan granted bail to MD Imran @ D.C. Guddu, who was summoned as an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC in a murder case, while dismissing the State of Jharkhand’s appeal challenging the anticipatory bail granted to two other co-accused who were similarly summoned.
The case arose from an FIR lodged by the father of the deceased, naming nine accused persons. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed against only three accused, while a closure report was submitted in respect of the remaining six. However, during the course of trial, eyewitnesses—who were family members of the deceased—deposed regarding the involvement of all nine accused persons originally named in the FIR.
The eyewitnesses’ depositions were recorded in 2020 and 2021. In 2022, the first informant filed an application under Section 319 CrPC before the trial court, seeking the summoning of the six co-accused who had been dropped by the police, on the strength of the eyewitnesses’ oral evidence.
The trial court partly allowed the application and summoned three of the six dropped accused—MD Imran @ D.C. Guddu, MD Samsher, and MD Arshad—to face trial. The trial court did not deem it fit to summon the remaining three. Significantly, the trial court’s order under Section 319 CrPC was never challenged and thus attained finality.
MD Imran @ D.C. Guddu was arrested pursuant to a non-bailable warrant issued against him and subsequently filed a bail application, which was rejected by the Jharkhand High Court on April 8, 2025. Meanwhile, before they could be arrested, MD Samsher and MD Arshad approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail, which was granted on July 2, 2025.
This resulted in two appeals before the Supreme Court—one filed by MD Imran challenging the rejection of his bail application, and the other filed by the State of Jharkhand challenging the grant of anticipatory bail to the remaining two co-accused.
The Supreme Court heard counsel for all parties and examined the oral evidence of the eyewitnesses on the basis of which the three accused had been summoned to face trial for murder. Charges had already been framed against them, and the trial was to proceed afresh.
Justice J.B. Pardiwala, authoring the judgment, articulated the crucial legal principle as follows:
“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 for the court while considering the plea for bail should be the presence of strong and cogent evidence, and not mere probability of his complicity.”
Elaborating on the applicable test, the Court observed:
“The test that has to be applied is one which is more than a prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to the extent that the evidence, if it goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction.”
The Court further held that while considering bail, courts must weigh factors such as the nature of the offence, the quality of evidence against the newly added accused, and the likelihood of the accused absconding or tampering with evidence. Emphasising this, the Court noted:
“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 Court also took note of the fact that the two other co-accused, MD Samsher and MD Arshad, had been on anticipatory bail since July 2, 2025, and had been regularly appearing before the trial court. Since the matter was already pending before the trial court, the Supreme Court observed that no further comment was required.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court directed that MD Imran @ D.C. Guddu be released on bail, subject to such terms and conditions as the trial court may deem fit to impose. As regards the other two accused already on anticipatory bail, the Court held that no case was made out by the State for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
The Court further directed that all three accused shall regularly appear before the trial court and cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial. In an important clarification, the Court stated:
“We 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’s appeal against the order granting anticipatory bail to Md. Samsher Alam and Md. Arshad. The trial court shall proceed in accordance with law and shall not be influenced by the observations made in this order.”
Case Title: MD Imran @ D.C. Guddu v. The State of Jharkhand (and connected appeal)
