Absence of test identification and victim's failure to identify accused warrants grant of regular bail.

The applicant, Amjad, filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. 327 of 2025.

The prosecution alleged that the main accused, Sharif Shah, abducted a 19-year-old victim and assaulted her; the applicant was accused of assisting in this abduction.

The applicant has been in judicial custody since November 24, 2025, and his previous bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on January 13, 2026.

Counsel for the applicant contended that the victim (PW1) failed to identify the applicant during her testimony (Paras 30 and 31 of evidence) and that no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted during the investigation.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the lack of identification by the victim and his period of incarceration.

2. Whether the applicant poses a risk of fleeing from justice, recidivism, or tampering with evidence if released.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, governing the High Court's power to grant bail.

It adhered to the principle that bail is a matter of discretion based on the gravity of the offence, the period of custody, and the presence of criminal antecedents.

The court also referenced Section 346 of the BNSS (equivalent to Section 309 of the Cr.P.C.) regarding the timely examination of witnesses to ensure the trial's progress is not hindered by the accused.

The court observed that while the allegations involve assisting in abduction, the material witness—the victim (PW1)—has already been examined and reportedly failed to identify the applicant.

The court noted the absence of a Test Identification Parade during the investigation and the fact that the State reported no criminal antecedents against the 25-year-old applicant.

The court reasoned that since the material witness has been examined, there is a diminished risk of the applicant tampering with evidence.

Furthermore, considering the applicant’s socio-economic status as a laborer and his family responsibilities, the court found no immediate likelihood of him fleeing from justice or committing further offences.

The court determined that continued incarceration was not compelled given that the trial would take significant time to conclude.

The holding is subject to strict conditions, including regular appearance before the trial court, refraining from committing similar offences, and not tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses.

The court clarified that these observations are limited to the bail application and do not reflect on the final merits of the trial.