After Over 4 Years In Custody, P&H HC Grants Bail To Murder Accused With 19 Witnesses Yet To Be Examined

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner should be released on regular bail, having regard to the length of his pre-trial detention and the anticipated duration of the trial.

The court held

The Court allowed the petition and ordered the petitioner’s release on bail upon furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the competent court, subject to conditions including attendance at hearings, non-interference with witnesses, surrender of his passport or an affidavit that he does not hold one, and disclosure of his residence and mobile number.

It also directed

The prosecution may seek cancellation of bail if the petitioner breaches the conditions or engages in further criminal activity.

01Facts

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in an FIR alleging offences including murder under Section 302 IPC.

p. 1 · ¶ 1

He contended that he was not named in the FIR, the case rested on circumstantial evidence, and the alleged knife recovery was unreliable; the State opposed bail, describing him as the principal accused.

pp. 1–2 · ¶ 2–3

The petitioner had been in custody since 1 September 2022, had no prior criminal involvement, and the State did not dispute his custody period.

pp. 2, 8–9 · ¶ 3, 10

By the time of the decision, seven prosecution witnesses had been examined and 19 remained.

p. 8 · ¶ 10

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner should be released on regular bail, having regard to the length of his pre-trial detention and the anticipated duration of the trial.

pp. 7–8 · ¶ 9–10

ii.Whether the seriousness of the allegations justified continued detention despite the petitioner’s prolonged custody and the absence of any demonstrated delay attributable to him.

p. 7 · ¶ 9 · p. 8 · ¶ 10

03Law Applied

Section 483 BNSS (formerly Section 439 CrPC) empowers the High Court to grant regular bail.

p. 1 · ¶ 1

Article 21 protects an accused’s right to a reasonably speedy trial; whether delay infringes that right depends on the circumstances, including the length and justification for delay, the accused’s assertion of the right, and prejudice caused.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 5

Bail is discretionary and is not to be withheld as punishment; relevant considerations include securing the accused’s attendance and assessing the circumstances cumulatively.

pp. 5–7 · ¶ 6–7

The Court also noted that pre-conviction detention should not be continued unnecessarily and relied on the principle that delay in trial may implicate Article 21.

p. 7 · ¶ 8–9

Provisions in the judgment · 12 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 439 Section 309 Section 437

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302 Section 201 Section 202

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 103 Section 238 Section 239 Section 61

Arms Act, 1959 Section 25

04Reasoning

Although the allegations were serious, the petitioner had already spent more than four years in custody, and the prosecution had not shown that he caused any delay in the trial.

p. 7 · ¶ 9 · p. 8 · ¶ 10

With 19 prosecution witnesses still to be examined, the trial was likely to take considerable time. Considering the prolonged pre-trial detention, the petitioner’s lack of prior criminal involvement, and the anticipated delay, the Court found release on bail appropriate without expressing any view on the merits of the case.

p. 8 · ¶ 10