After Over 2 Years 9 Months In Custody, P&H HC Grants Bail To Man Accused In Fatal Langar Assault As Trial Has Examined Only 3 Of 24 Witnesses

The appellant was charged, along with co-accused, in connection with an assault on the victim, who later died from his injuries. The FIR included offences under Sections 148, 149, 302, 325, 307, 323, 396 and 506 IPC and Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act. The appellant was arrested on 18 January 2024. His earlier bail application and appeal had been dismissed; the trial court also dismissed his subsequent bail application on 27 August 2026.

In this appeal under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act, he relied on prolonged custody exceeding two years and nine months, the limited progress of the trial (three of 24 prosecution witnesses examined), and parity with co-accused who had been granted bail. The State opposed the appeal, citing the seriousness of the allegations and lack of a material change in circumstances.

Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act provides the appellate route invoked to challenge the bail order, while Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was the provision under which the appellant had sought regular bail.

Article 21 of the Constitution protects an accused’s right to a speedy trial; prolonged pre-trial detention may be inconsistent with that guarantee, and bail is not to be withheld as punishment.

In Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 INSC 645, the Supreme Court affirmed that the right to a speedy trial applies irrespective of the seriousness of the crime and that the seriousness of the charge alone should not defeat a bail plea where a speedy trial cannot be secured.

Gurbaksh Singh Sibba v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, states that bail serves to secure the accused’s attendance at trial, not to punish.

The Court also relied on Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51, for the proposition that Section 436-A CrPC’s specified-period approach to release may apply to special enactments in the absence of specific provisions.

The Court acknowledged that the allegations, including the appellant’s alleged participation in an unlawful assembly and the victim’s resulting death, disclosed a prima facie case.

It nevertheless gave substantial weight to the appellant’s custody of more than two years and nine months and the fact that only three of 24 prosecution witnesses had been examined, making conclusion of the trial unlikely in the near future.

Applying the Article 21 principles and the cited precedents, the Court concluded that continued detention in these circumstances would be inconsistent with the right to a speedy trial; the seriousness of the allegations did not, by itself, justify withholding bail.

The State was given liberty to seek cancellation of bail in the event of breach of those conditions, and the Court clarified that its observations would not affect the merits of the case.