Supreme Court Explains Test For Grant Of Bail To Accused Added During Trial Under Section 319 CrPC

The Supreme Court has 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.

“…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.”, observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan, while setting aside the Jharkhand High Court's decision which denied bail to the appellant, who was arrayed in the middle of the trial.

"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 Court observed.

The case stemmed from a murder FIR in which nine persons were named, but the police chargesheeted only three and closed the case against the remaining six. During the trial, the prosecution witnesses named all nine accused, prompting an application under Section 319 CrPC in 2022. The trial court partially allowed the plea, summoning three of the dropped accused, including Appellant.

Appellant was arrested on a non-bailable warrant and remained in custody after the High Court rejected his bail plea, while the other two newly summoned accused were granted anticipatory bail.

Two appeals were filed before the Supreme Court, one on behalf of the Appellant against the rejection of his bail plea, and another filed by the State against the High Court's decision to grant anticipatory bail to other accused.

In an appeal filed by the Appellant, the Court laid down a structured approach for considering bail in cases involving an accused summoned under Section 319 CrPC, i.e.,

1. The evidence must disclose more than a mere prima facie case, which is ordinarily sufficient for framing charges.

2. At the same time, it need not meet the higher threshold of satisfaction that the evidence, if unrebutted, would necessarily lead to conviction.

3. There must, however, be strong and cogent evidence indicating the accused's complicity, justifying continued custody.

“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.”, the court observed.

Applying the law, the court observed that the higher threshold required to deny bail to a Section 319 accused was not met in the present case and the principle of parity also weighed in favour of the appellant as other co-accused were already out on bail.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was directed to be released on bail, moreover the State's appeal against grant of an anticipatory bail to other co-accused was dismissed.

Cause Title: MD IMRAN @ D.C. GUDDU VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND (and connected matter)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 23

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

Mr. Samant Singh, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh & Mr. Ganesh Khanna, Advocates for the respective accused persons

Ms. Pragya Baghel, Advocate for the State of Jharkhand.