Supreme Court: Bail for accused summoned under S 319 CrPC requires strong, cogent evidence

The Supreme Court has ruled that when a person is added as an accused under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code and subsequently arrested seeking bail, courts must look for strong and cogent evidence rather than mere probability of complicity.

The bench emphasized that the test to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing charges, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction.

The court should weigh factors like the nature of the offence, quality of evidence against the new accused and 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, much higher than that required for framing charges against the original accused.

The ruling came while allowing a bail plea by Md Imran alias D C Guddu, who was summoned as an accused along with two others by the trial court on an application filed under Section 319 CrPC in a murder case.

The appellant was named as one of nine accused in the FIR but police filed the charge sheet only against three other accused. On a plea by the complainant during trial based on evidence, the sessions court summoned three others including the appellant.

He was arrested based on non-bailable warrants and refused bail. The other two accused, however, obtained anticipatory bail from the High Court.

Examining the appeal against the Jharkhand High Court's refusal of bail on April 8, 2025, the bench stated it looked into the matter thoroughly. The court also examined oral evidence of eyewitnesses on the strength of which the three accused were summoned to face trial for the offence of murder.

After explaining the legal position, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and granted bail to the appellant.

Regarding the other two accused, Md Shamsher Alam and Md Arshad, who were already on anticipatory bail, the bench noted that no case was made out by the state for cancellation of their anticipatory bail. This came in response to a separate plea by the state government against the anticipatory bail granted to the two other accused.

The court made it clear that all three accused should regularly appear before the trial court and cooperate in expeditious disposal of the trial.

The judgment establishes important guidelines for bail consideration when accused persons are added during trial proceedings under Section 319 CrPC. Section 319 allows trial courts to proceed against persons not named as accused in the FIR if evidence emerges during trial suggesting their involvement in the offence.

The Supreme Court's ruling clarifies that the threshold for bail in such cases requires more stringent scrutiny than for original accused persons. Courts must evaluate whether there is strong and cogent evidence indicating complicity before denying bail to persons summoned under this provision.

This standard strikes a balance between ensuring justice and protecting the rights of persons added as accused during trial, who were not part of the initial investigation. The ruling provides clarity on the appropriate evidentiary standard courts should apply when considering bail applications from such accused persons.

The judgment reinforces that bail decisions must be based on the quality and strength of evidence rather than mere suspicion or probability of involvement. Courts must carefully assess the evidence against newly summoned accused persons and consider factors beyond those applicable to original accused when deciding bail applications.

Case details: Md Imran @ D C Guddu vs The State of Jharkhand, decided by a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Vishwanathan on January 7, 2026.