After 5+ Years In Custody And Only 2 Of 38 Witnesses Examined, P&H HC Grants Bail To Man Accused In Alleged Armed Prisoner Rescue

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail in light of his substantial period of custody and the limited progress of the trial.

The court held

The Court allowed the petition and ordered the petitioner’s release on regular bail upon furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the competent court, provided he was not required in another case.

It also directed

He was directed not to threaten or influence prosecution witnesses; the Court further stated that absence from proceedings would disentitle him to concessional relief and that the bail order would be deemed cancelled if he were later found directly involved in similar activities.

The trial court was directed to decide the case independently and as expeditiously as possible.

01Facts

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case arising from an alleged armed attack on a police escort and the escape of an accused from custody outside the Moonak court complex.

¶ 1

The FIR, registered on 13 December 2019, alleged offences under Sections 307, 224, 332, 353, 186 and 130 IPC, corresponding BNS provisions, and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

¶ 1, 3

The petitioner was not named in the FIR and was subsequently implicated on a co-accused’s disclosure statement; his earlier bail petition had been dismissed.

¶ 2, 4

The Court recorded that the petitioner had undergone five years, eight months and thirty days in custody and that, after charges were reframed on 27 February 2026, only two of 38 prosecution witnesses had been examined.

¶ 6–7, 13

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail in light of his substantial period of custody and the limited progress of the trial.

¶ 6–7, 13–15

ii.Whether the petitioner’s alleged criminal antecedents justified refusing bail despite co-accused having been granted bail.

¶ 8–12

03Law Applied

The petition was considered under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, identified in the judgment as corresponding to the former Section 439 CrPC, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail.

¶ 1

The Court assessed the request by reference to the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the allegations, the period of incarceration, the progress and likely duration of trial, and the treatment of co-accused.

¶ 12–15

Provisions in the judgment · 24 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 439

Indian Penal Code, 1860 10 provisions

Section 307 Section 224 Section 332 Section 353 Section 186 Section 130 Section 341 Section 322 Section 109 Section 34

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 11 provisions

Section 109 Section 262 Section 121 Section 132 Section 221 Section 159 Section 191 Section 190 Section 238 Section 317 Section 61

Arms Act, 1959 Section 25

04Reasoning

The Court considered that several co-accused, including the person who had escaped custody and another accused, had been granted bail, and held that the petitioner’s involvement in other cases alone did not justify denying him the same relief.

¶ 12

It also weighed the substantial custody recorded in the certificate against the slow trial progress: only two of 38 witnesses had been examined after charges were reframed, and the trial was likely to take considerable time.

¶ 7, 13–14

In the totality of those circumstances, continued detention was not warranted.

¶ 14–15