MD IMRAN @ D.C. GUDDUversusTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND

           [2026] 2 S.C.R. 139 : 2026 INSC 36

                  Md Imran @ D.C. Guddu
                             v.
                  The State of Jharkhand
              (Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 2026)
                         07 January 2026
      [J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]


                     Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the accused added during trial u/s.319 CrPC,
entitled to bail.

                            Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Power to proceed
against other persons appearing to be guilty – FIR registered
against nine accused persons, however chargesheet filed only
against three accused persons, whereas the closure report
filed as regards the remaining six co-accused – On basis of
the oral evidence of the eye-witnesses, application u/s.319
filed by the first informant before the trial court seeking that
the six co-accused dropped by the police to be added and
summoned as accused to face the trial – Application partly
allowed, out of the six accused who were dropped, three
accused persons summoned – Appellant arrested pursuant
to non-bailable warrant issued against him, and the other two
granted anticipatory bail by the High Court – Correctness:
Held: When a person is added as an accused u/s.319 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 – Test 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 – 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 – 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 – Thus, on facts, appellant to be released on bail
140                                                          [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       subject to terms and conditions that the trial court may deem fit
       to impose – Other two accused already on anticipatory bail – No
       case made out by the State for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
       [Paras 14, 15, 17, 18]

                                 List of Acts
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860; Arms Act.

                              List of Keywords
       Bail; Oral evidence of the eye-witnesses; Adding of accused.

                             Case Arising From
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
       109 of 2026
       From the Judgment and Order dated 08.04.2025 of the High Court
       of Jharkhand at Ranchi in BA No. 2758 of 2025
       With
       Criminal Appeal No. 110 of 2026

                          Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant(s):
       Ms. Pragya Baghel, Ms. Pallavi Langar, Sujeet Kumar Chaubey,
       Rajeev Singh, Samant Singh, Ms. Shefali Jain, Ms. Anu H.
       Kirutthika, Rohit Singh, Ashwani Kumar Singh, Rajeev Singh.
       Advs. for the Respondent(s):
       Ms. Pallavi Langar, Ms. Pragya Baghel, Sujeet Kumar Chaubey,
       Ganesh Khanna, Satyabeer Singh, Gauraw Kumar, Himanshu
       Bhushan, Ashok Anand, Rakesh Kumar Singh, Ajay Gupta, Akash
       Kakade, Parshant Phad.

                 Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                    Order

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.
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                          141

           Md Imran @ D.C. Guddu v. The State of Jharkhand


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 of 2019 registered for the offence
     punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal
     Code (for short “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 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
142                                                         [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


       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 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.                                                          143

              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