Title: Md Imran @ D.C. Guddu v. State of Jharkhand | Bail Standard for S. 319 CrPC Accused
Subtitle: Supreme Court lays down enhanced evidentiary standard for bail when accused summoned under Section 319 CrPC – Strong and cogent evidence required
Excerpt: Supreme Court clarifies bail standard for persons added as accused under Section 319 CrPC. Court must apply test higher than prima facie case used for framing charges but short of conviction standard. Relevant consideration should be strong and cogent evidence of complicity, not mere probability. Court to weigh nature of offence, quality of evidence against new accused, and likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence. Threshold for bail much higher than that required for framing charges against original accused. Appellant granted bail; co-accused already on anticipatory bail directed to cooperate in expeditious trial.
Tags: #Criminal-Appeal-109-2026, Md-Imran-DC-Guddu-v-State-of-Jharkhand, CrPC-S-319, bail-after-S-319-summoning, summoning-additional-accused, bail-standard-Section-319, strong-and-cogent-evidence, evidence-threshold-for-bail, prima-facie-case-vs-bail, framing-of-charges, anticipatory-bail, murder-case-bail, IPC-S-302, unlawful-assembly, Arms-Act, eyewitness-testimony, closure-report, chargesheet, non-bailable-warrant, judicial-custody, Supreme-Court-of-India, bail-jurisprudence, criminal-procedure, absconding-likelihood, evidence-tampering, expeditious-trial, J.B.Pardiwala, K.V.Viswanathan
