Bail denied in murder trial involving a habitual offender where significant material evidence remains pending.

The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, regarding FIR No. 118/2023 for murder (Section 302/34 IPC).

The prosecution alleges that co-accused persons, acting on the petitioner’s instructions via video call, assaulted Ravi Kumar at "Hope Centre" from March 27–30, 2023.

The petitioner allegedly participated personally on March 30, kicking the deceased in the stomach, leading to his death.

A charge sheet was filed on August 3, 2023.

The trial court rejected a prior bail application on November 10, 2025, citing the heinous nature of the crime and the petitioner’s status as a habitual offender.

The petitioner now moves the High Court on the grounds of innocence and lack of incriminating evidence in the 23 witnesses examined thus far.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under the principle of "bail is the rule, jail is the exception" despite being charged with a heinous offense under Section 302 IPC.

2. Whether the petitioner’s past criminal antecedents and the current stage of the trial justify the denial of bail.

The court applied Section 302 of the IPC and Section 437(1) of the CrPC/Section 483 of the BNSS.

The court relied on the principles from Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, which lists eight factors for bail, including the gravity of the offense, the likelihood of repeating the offense, and the danger of influencing witnesses.

It further integrated the holding from Sheikh Mehmood v. UT of J&K (2026), which clarifies that the "bail is the rule" doctrine is not absolute and must be balanced against the heinousness of the crime, premeditation, and the petitioner’s antecedents.

The court reasoned that while "bail is the rule" serves as a guiding principle, it cannot override the statutory restrictions and judicial discretion in cases of murder and conspiracy.

The court observed that 14 material witnesses, including witnesses to the disclosure statements, are yet to be examined, posing a risk of witness tampering if the petitioner were released.

Regarding the petitioner's character, the court noted his self-admission of involvement in nine other criminal cases, concluding that he qualifies as a habitual offender whose liberty could thwart justice.

The court dismissed the plea of "delayed trial," noting that the examination of 23 out of 37 witnesses indicated substantial progress in the proceedings.

It held that given the severity of the punishment for murder, the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, and the critical nature of the remaining prosecution witnesses, the petitioner does not deserve enlargement on bail at this stage.

The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.