New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has clarified the legal standard to be applied while considering bail pleas of persons summoned as additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure during the course of a trial. The Court held that such cases require courts to look for strong and cogent evidence of complicity, a threshold higher than the one applied at the stage of framing charges, but short of a finding that the evidence would inevitably lead to conviction.
The ruling was delivered by a Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan while allowing the appeal filed by MD Imran, also known as D.C. Guddu, and dismissing a connected appeal by the State of Jharkhand challenging anticipatory bail granted to two co-accused.
The case arose from a 2018 FIR lodged by the father of the deceased, naming nine accused persons in a murder case. After investigation, the police filed a chargesheet against only three accused and submitted a closure report in respect of the remaining six. During the trial, however, eyewitnesses who were family members of the deceased testified about the involvement of all nine persons originally named in the FIR.
On the basis of these depositions recorded in 2020 and 2021, the first informant moved an application under Section 319 CrPC in 2022 seeking to summon the six persons who had been dropped from the chargesheet. The trial court partly allowed the plea, summoning three of them, including MD Imran, while declining to summon the remaining three. That order was never challenged and attained finality.
MD Imran was subsequently arrested pursuant to a non-bailable warrant, and his bail application was rejected by the Jharkhand High Court in April 2025. The other two summoned accused approached the High Court before arrest and were granted anticipatory bail in July 2025. This led to two appeals before the Supreme Court.
Examining the oral evidence of the eyewitnesses, the Supreme Court held that when a person is added as an accused under Section 319 CrPC and seeks bail after arrest, courts must go beyond mere probability of involvement. Justice Pardiwala, writing for the Bench, observed that the court must assess whether there is strong and cogent evidence indicating complicity, taking into account the nature of the offence, the quality of evidence, and the likelihood of the accused absconding or tampering with evidence.
The Bench also noted that the two co-accused who had been granted anticipatory bail had been appearing regularly before the trial court and complying with all conditions. Finding no grounds for interference, the Court declined to cancel their bail.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court directed that MD Imran be released on bail, subject to terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court, and directed all three accused to cooperate in the expeditious conduct of the trial. The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail proceedings and would not influence the trial on merits.
Case Title: MD Imran @ D.C. Guddu v. The State of Jharkhand (along with connected appeal)