Accused cannot claim bail based on trial delay caused by their own long-term absconsion.

The appellant, Kamal Chouhan, is accused of participating in a conspiracy with co-accused Lokesh Sharma and Rajendra Chouhan to murder Ramesh Ninama, an eyewitness in a separate murder case.

The murder occurred on 14.07.2008 via gunshot fire.

While co-accused were apprehended earlier, the appellant remained absconding for approximately 17 years, finally being arrested on 16.12.2025.

This is the appellant’s third appeal for bail under Section 14 A(2) of the SC/ST Act; the first was withdrawn and the second was dismissed on merits on 15.01.2026.

The appellant sought bail citing lack of recovery, absence of eyewitness identification, and inordinate trial delay.

1. Whether the appellant is entitled to bail based on the grounds of trial delay and lack of direct evidence, despite a previous dismissal on merits and a history of absconding.

The Court applied Section 14 A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, regarding appeals against bail orders.

It considered the substantive charges under Sections 302 (Murder), 341 (Wrongful Restraint), 120-B (Criminal Conspiracy), and 34 (Common Intention) of the IPC, alongside Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The court relied on the principle that a person responsible for delaying a trial through their own conduct (absconding) cannot subsequently claim the benefit of trial delay to seek bail.

The Court rejected the appellant's arguments regarding trial delay, noting that the appellant himself was responsible for the delay in investigation and trial by remaining at large until late 2025.

The Court observed that the trial progress was "satisfactory" and "as per the mandate of law," with 19 witnesses already examined by March 2026.

Regarding the appellant's claims of weak evidence and hostile witnesses, the Court held that such grounds could not be advanced given the nature of the offence and the fact that the previous appeal (CRA No. 12592/2025) was dismissed on merits just months prior in January 2026.

The Court emphasize that the appellant could not be permitted to take benefit of his own misconduct.

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the trial court's order rejecting bail.