Inclusion of Bail Grant Test for Section 319 CrPC Accused

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan in the case of MD Imran @ D.C. Guddu v. The State of Jharkhand (2025) set aside the Jharkhand High Court's decision denying bail to the appellant, who was added as an accused during the middle of the trial under Section 319 CrPC (358 of BNSS).  

• The Court laid down a rule for granting bail to a person added as an additional accused in the middle of the trial, stating that bail shouldn't be denied unless there's strong and convincing evidence showing serious involvement. 

What was the Background of MD Imran @ D.C. Guddu v. The State of Jharkhand (2025) Case? 

• The case originated from a murder FIR in which nine persons were named as accused. 
• The police filed chargesheet against only three accused and closed the case against the remaining six persons. 
• During the trial, prosecution witnesses named all nine accused persons in their testimonies. 
• In 2022, an application was filed under Section 319 CrPC to summon the six accused against whom the case had been closed. 
• The trial court partially allowed the application and summoned three of the dropped accused, including the appellant. 
• The appellant was arrested on a non-bailable warrant and remained in custody. 
• The Jharkhand High Court rejected the appellant's bail plea. 
• The other two newly summoned accused were granted anticipatory bail by the High Court. 
• Two appeals were filed before the Supreme Court - one by the appellant against rejection of bail, and another by the State against grant of anticipatory bail to other co-accused. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court observed that when a person is added as an accused under Section 319 CrPC and is arrested, the relevant consideration while deciding bail should be the presence of strong and cogent evidence rather than mere probability of complicity. 
• The bench emphasized that bail shouldn't be denied unless there's strong and convincing evidence showing serious involvement. 
• The Court laid down a structured three-tier approach for considering bail in cases involving accused summoned under Section 319 CrPC: 
  • The evidence must disclose more than a mere prima facie case, which is ordinarily sufficient for framing charges. 
  • At the same time, it need not meet the higher threshold of satisfaction that the evidence, if unrebutted, would necessarily lead to conviction. 
  • There must be strong and cogent evidence indicating the accused's complicity, justifying continued custody. 
  • The Court stated that the test 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 unrebutted, would lead to conviction. 
• The Court directed that 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 should be weighed. 
• The bench observed that the higher threshold required to deny bail to a Section 319 accused was not met in the present case. 
• The Court applied the principle of parity, noting that other co-accused were already out on bail, which weighed in favor of the appellant. 
• The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was directed to be released on bail. 
• The State's appeal against grant of anticipatory bail to other co-accused was dismissed. 

What is Section 319 of CrPC (358 of BNSS)?  

• This provision provides for power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of an offence. 
• This is contained in Section 358 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). 
• It is based on the doctrine judex damantur cum nocens absolvitur which means Judges condemned when guilty is acquitted. This section states that- 
  • Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. 
  • Where such a person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. 
  • Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. 
  • Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1), then— 
    • The proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard; 
    • Subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced. 
• Essential Elements of Section 319: 
• There is any enquiry or trial of an offence. 
• It appears from the evidence that any person, not being an accused has committed any offence for which, the person to be tried together with the accused.