MD IMRAN @ D.C. GUDDU versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Citation: [2026] 2 S.C.R. 139 · Decided: 07-01-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA, K.V. VISWANATHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 2 S.C.R. 139 : 2026 INSC 36
Md Imran @ D.C. Guddu 
v. 
The State of Jharkhand
(Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 2026)
07 January 2026
[J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the accused added during trial u/s.319 CrPC, 
entitled to bail.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Power to proceed 
against other persons appearing to be guilty – FIR registered 
against nine accused persons, however chargesheet filed only 
against three accused persons, whereas the closure report 
filed as regards the remaining six co-accused – On basis of 
the oral evidence of the eye-witnesses, application u/s.319 
filed by the first informant before the trial court seeking that 
the six co-accused dropped by the police to be added and 
summoned as accused to face the trial – Application partly 
allowed, out of the six accused who were dropped, three 
accused persons summoned – Appellant arrested pursuant 
to non-bailable warrant issued against him, and the other two 
granted anticipatory bail by the High Court – Correctness:
Held: When a person is added as an accused u/s.319 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 – Test 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 – 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 – 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 – Thus, on facts, appellant to be released on bail 
140
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
subject to terms and conditions that the trial court may deem fit 
to impose – Other two accused already on anticipatory bail – No 
case made out by the State for cancellation of anticipatory bail. 
[Paras 14, 15, 17, 18]
List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860; Arms Act.
List of Keywords
Bail; Oral evidence of the eye-witnesses; Adding of accused.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
109 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.04.2025 of the High Court 
of Jharkhand at Ranchi in BA No. 2758 of 2025
With
Criminal Appeal No. 110 of 2026
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Ms. Pragya Baghel, Ms. Pallavi Langar, Sujeet Kumar Chaubey, 
Rajeev Singh, Samant Singh, Ms. Shefali Jain, Ms. Anu H. 
Kirutthika, Rohit Singh, Ashwani Kumar Singh, Rajeev Singh.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Ms. Pallavi Langar, Ms. Pragya Baghel, Sujeet Kumar Chaubey, 
Ganesh Khanna, Satyabeer Singh, Gauraw Kumar, Himanshu 
Bhushan, Ashok Anand, Rakesh Kumar Singh, Ajay Gupta, Akash 
Kakade, Parshant Phad.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
1.	
Leave granted.
2.	
Since the issues involved in both the captioned appeals are the 
same, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being 
disposed of by this common order.
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 
141
Md Imran @ D.C. Guddu v. The State of Jharkhand
3.	
So far as the Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl) No. 12110/2025 is 
concerned, the same has been filed by one MD Imran @ D.C. Guddu.
4.	
The appeal filed by Imran @ D.C. Guddu arises from the order passed 
by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi dated 08.04.2025 in BA 
No.2758/2025 by which the bail application filed by the appellant in 
connection with Daily Market Police Station Case No. 46 of 2018, 
arising out of S.T. No. 100239 of 2019 registered for the offence 
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal 
Code (for short “IPC”) respectively and Sections 25(1-B)A/26/27/35 
of the Arms Act respectively came to be rejected.
5.	
It appears from the materials on record that the appellant herein viz. 
MD Imran @ D.C. Guddu was one of the accused persons named 
in the FIR lodged by the father of the deceased.
6.	
The FIR was registered against in all nine accused persons. At the 
end of the investigation chargesheet came to be filed only against 
three accused persons, whereas the closure report was filed so far 
as the oth
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.