The Jharkhand High Court reaffirmed that when the complainant and victim are declared hostile due to compromise between the parties, and the accused has remained in custody for a considerable period, bail may be justified. This judgment upholds existing precedent, reinforces discretion in bail matters, and is binding for subordinate courts in Jharkhand.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Cr.A(DB)/1259/2025 of VIMAL SINGH Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND |
| CNR | JHHC010338052025 |
| Date of Registration | 14-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Allowed |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA |
| Court | High Court of Jharkhand |
| Bench | Division Bench (Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms bail granted in similar circumstances (e.g., bail to co-accused Ashu Kumari) |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law — Bail |
| Questions of Law | Whether bail should be granted when the informant and victim are declared hostile pursuant to compromise. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon | Cr.A (D.B) No. 1124 of 2025 (co-accused Ashu Kumari granted bail by same court) |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Jharkhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Follows | Bail order in Cr.A (D.B) No. 1124 of 2025 (related to co-accused Ashu Kumari) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that bail may be granted where the complainant and victim are declared hostile due to compromise, especially if the accused is similarly placed as a co-accused who has already been granted bail.
- Court gives weight to the fact of compromise and hostility of prosecution witnesses, particularly when there is parity in bail to co-accused.
- Defence lawyers may rely on this judgment to argue for bail in cases where prosecution witnesses have turned hostile on compromise grounds.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted that both the victim and informant were declared hostile after a compromise was reached, undermining the prosecution case.
- Emphasized parity as a relevant consideration—co-accused Ashu Kumari had already been granted bail in similar circumstances.
- Recognized the appellant’s custody since 22.05.2025 as a factor justifying bail.
- The State formally opposed bail but did not dispute the facts of compromise or hostility.
- Therefore, the earlier bail rejection order was set aside, and the appellant was ordered to be released on bail with appropriate conditions.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- Co-accused Ashu Kumari has already been granted bail in the same case.
- Matter stands compromised between the parties.
- Consequent to compromise, both the victim and the informant have turned hostile.
- The appellant has been in custody since 22.05.2025.
Respondent (State):
- Formally opposed the prayer for bail.
- Did not dispute the occurrence of compromise or hostility of victim and informant.
Factual Background
The dispute originated when the daughter of the informant left for Delhi in December 2004 and subsequently lost contact with her family, resulting in the registration of an FIR. During proceedings, a compromise was reached between the parties, and both the victim and the informant were declared hostile by the prosecution. A co-accused, Ashu Kumari, was previously granted bail in analogous circumstances. The present appellant, Vimal Singh, had been in custody since May 22, 2025.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment considers principles relating to bail in criminal cases.
- The parity rule is recognized—grant of bail to similarly situated co-accused is a relevant factor.
- The effect of compromise on the sustainability of prosecution evidence (e.g., testimony turning hostile) is acknowledged for bail consideration.
- No explicit statutory provisions or constitutional articles were interpreted beyond standard bail jurisprudence.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinion was recorded; both Justices concurred in allowing the appeal and granting bail.
Procedural Innovations
The judgment set aside the order of the court below rejecting bail but did not introduce any new procedural norms or evidentiary innovations.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment follows existing precedent concerning factors relevant for the grant of bail, especially in compromised and hostile witness scenarios.