After 3 Years In Custody, P&H HC Grants Regular Bail To Murder Accused With Only 8 Of 28 Prosecution Witnesses Examined

In brief

The question

Whether the appellants should be granted regular bail, notwithstanding the seriousness of the charges and the dismissal of their earlier bail appeal, in light of their custody and the progress of the trial.

The court held

The Court condoned the 127-day delay and allowed the appeal, ordering the appellants’ release on regular bail on furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate.

It also directed

Bail was subject to conditions, including non-interference with evidence, regular attendance, no further offences, passport deposit if applicable, disclosure of cellphone numbers, and not delaying the trial; the State or complainant may seek cancellation upon breach.

The Court clarified that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits.

01Facts

The appellants sought regular bail under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in a case arising from FIR No. 361 dated 17 September 2023, registered under Sections 302, 34 and 120-B IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, concerning the murder of Satvir Singh

pp. 1–2

The appellants had been in custody since 17 September 2023; the challan was presented on 14 December 2023.

pp. 3–4

Of 28 prosecution witnesses, eight had been examined, including the complainant and two witnesses relevant to the alleged circumstances

pp. 3–4

Their first regular-bail appeal had been dismissed as withdrawn on 27 April 2026; this was their second appeal

p. 5

The Court also condoned a delay of 127 days in filing the appeal.

p. 1

02Issues

i.Whether the appellants should be granted regular bail, notwithstanding the seriousness of the charges and the dismissal of their earlier bail appeal, in light of their custody and the progress of the trial.

pp. 3–6

ii.Whether the delay of 127 days in filing the appeal should be condoned.

p. 1

03Law Applied

Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act provides the appellate route invoked for seeking bail in this case; the appellants faced charges under Sections 302, 34 and 120-B IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

pp. 1–2

Under Article 21, the right to a speedy trial applies irrespective of the nature of the crime; where the State cannot provide a speedy trial, the seriousness of the alleged offence alone should not defeat a bail plea. An accused remains presumed innocent until proven guilty (Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494)

pp. 3–4

A successive regular-bail application is maintainable, but ordinarily requires a substantial change in circumstances; if bail is granted, the Court should record clear reasons for doing so (Rafiq Khan v. State of Haryana and another, CRA-S-2332-2023).

pp. 5–6

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 3

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302 Section 34

04Reasoning

The Court considered the appellants’ extended custody, the fact that only eight of 28 prosecution witnesses had been examined, and the resulting likelihood that the trial would not conclude in the near future

pp. 3–4

It also noted that the case rested on circumstantial evidence, that the complainant and the two witnesses relied on by the prosecution had been examined, and that the appellants had clean antecedents and were not shown to be involved in other cases

pp. 4–5

These circumstances, particularly the prolonged detention and slow trial, supplied a sufficient basis to entertain the second bail appeal despite the earlier appeal’s dismissal as withdrawn

pp. 5–6

The Court found no tangible material indicating that the appellants were likely to abscond or interfere with the evidence, and avoided expressing any view on the disputed merits.

pp. 4–6