Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2026 INSC 36
Criminal Appeal No. /2026
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 12110/2025)
MD IMRAN @ D.C. GUDDU
Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
Respondent(s)
WITH
Criminal Appeal No. /2026
(arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 19548/2025)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Since the issues involved in both the captioned appeals
are the same, those were taken up for hearing analogously and
are being disposed of by this common order.
3. So far as the Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl) No.
12110/2025 is concerned, the same has been filed by one MD
Imran @ D.C. Guddu.
4. The appeal filed by Imran @ D.C. Guddu arises from the
order passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi dated
08.04.2025 in BA No.2758/2025 by which the bail application
filed by the appellant in connection with Daily Market Police
Station Case No. 46 of 2018, arising out of S.T. No. 100239
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
CHETAN ARORA
Date: 2026.01.07
21:13:43 IST
Reason:
of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under Sections
147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short
1
“IPC”) respectively and Sections 25(1-B)A/26/27/35 of the
Arms Act respectively came to be rejected.
5. It appears from the materials on record that the
appellant herein viz. MD Imran @ D.C. Guddu was one of the
accused persons named in the FIR lodged by the father of the
deceased.
6. The FIR was registered against in all nine accused
persons. At the end of the investigation chargesheet came to
be filed only against three accused persons, whereas the
closure report was filed so far as the other six co-accused
are 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 the nine accused
persons originally named in the FIR.
7. The depositions of the eyewitnesses were recorded
sometime in 2020 and 2021 respectively. In the year 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 came to be dropped by the police
should be added and summoned as accused to face the trial.
Such application was filed on the strength of the oral
evidence of the eye-witnesses which came on record.
8. The application filed by the first informant was looked
into by the trial court and ultimately the same came to be
partly allowed. Out of the six accused who were dropped, the
trial court thought fit to summon three accused persons. So
far as the other three are concerned, the trial court did not
2
deem fit to add them in exercise of its powers under Section
319 of the Cr.P.C.
9. It is not in dispute that the original order passed by
the trial court under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. never came
to be challenged. It attained finality. The appellant herein
MD Imran @ D.C. Guddu came to be arrested pursuant to a non-
bailable warrant issued against him. In so far as the
respondents in the connected matters are concerned, before
they could be arrested, they went before the High Court and
prayed for anticipatory bail. The High Court granted them
anticipatory bail.
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
3
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 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.
4
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.
…………………………………………….J
[J B PARDIWALA]
………………………………………...J
[K.V. VISWANATHAN]
New Delhi;
January 07, 2026.
5
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2026 INSC 36
Criminal Appeal No. /2026
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 12110/2025)
MD IMRAN @ D.C. GUDDU
Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
Respondent(s)
WITH
Criminal Appeal No. /2026
(arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 19548/2025)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Since the issues involved in both the captioned appeals
are the same, those were taken up for hearing analogously and
are being disposed of by this common order.
3. So far as the Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl) No.
12110/2025 is concerned, the same has been filed by one MD
Imran @ D.C. Guddu.
4. The appeal filed by Imran @ D.C. Guddu arises from the
order passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi dated
08.04.2025 in BA No.2758/2025 by which the bail application
filed by the appellant in connection with Daily Market Police
Station Case No. 46 of 2018, arising out of S.T. No. 100239
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
CHETAN ARORA
Date: 2026.01.07
21:13:43 IST
Reason:
of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under Sections
147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short
1
“IPC”) respectively and Sections 25(1-B)A/26/27/35 of the
Arms Act respectively came to be rejected.
5. It appears from the materials on record that the
appellant herein viz. MD Imran @ D.C. Guddu was one of the
accused persons named in the FIR lodged by the father of the
deceased.
6. The FIR was registered against in all nine accused
persons. At the end of the investigation chargesheet came to
be filed only against three accused persons, whereas the
closure report was filed so far as the other six co-accused
are 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 the nine accused
persons originally named in the FIR.
7. The depositions of the eyewitnesses were recorded
sometime in 2020 and 2021 respectively. In the year 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 came to be dropped by the police
should be added and summoned as accused to face the trial.
Such application was filed on the strength of the oral
evidence of the eye-witnesses which came on record.
8. The application filed by the first informant was looked
into by the trial court and ultimately the same came to be
partly allowed. Out of the six accused who were dropped, the
trial court thought fit to summon three accused persons. So
far as the other three are concerned, the trial court did not
2
deem fit to add them in exercise of its powers under Section
319 of the Cr.P.C.
9. It is not in dispute that the original order passed by
the trial court under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. never came
to be challenged. It attained finality. The appellant herein
MD Imran @ D.C. Guddu came to be arrested pursuant to a non-
bailable warrant issued against him. In so far as the
respondents in the connected matters are concerned, before
they could be arrested, they went before the High Court and
prayed for anticipatory bail. The High Court granted them
anticipatory bail.
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
3
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 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.
4
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.
…………………………………………….J
[J B PARDIWALA]
………………………………………...J
[K.V. VISWANATHAN]
New Delhi;
January 07, 2026.
5