Bail denied on direct evidence; trial court directed to expedite proceedings within five months.

On 28 May 2025, the complainant Laxminarayan Yadav, his father Chintaram Yadav, nephew Birendra alias Dulrawa, and Surendra Yadav were returning from the Gaurakapa temple and fair when the applicant and co-accused allegedly intercepted their motorcycle near Bhardali turn.

Following an objection to the manner of driving, the accused allegedly abused, threatened, and assaulted them with sticks.

Laxminarayan and Chintaram sustained injuries, while Birendra died from the injuries suffered in the incident.

An FIR was registered as Crime No. 102/2025 at Police Station Pandariya, District Kabirdham, initially for offences under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 109(1), 191(2), 191(3), and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; the offence of murder under Section 103(1) was subsequently added after the deceased’s death was reported.

The applicant was arrested on 30 May 2025. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.

He sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that material eye-witnesses had not fully supported the prosecution and that only 4 of 30 witnesses had been examined.

The State opposed bail, relying on the named FIR, the testimony of injured witness Chintaram, seizure of a bamboo stick from the applicant, and rejection of bail applications filed by co-accused persons.

Whether the applicant, accused of participating in an assault resulting in death and charged under the specified provisions of the BNS, should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS?

Whether the applicant’s alleged weaknesses in the testimony of certain eye-witnesses, prolonged custody, and slow progress of trial justified the grant of bail despite direct evidence and rejection of bail applications of co-accused?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

It considered the nature and gravity of the alleged offences under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 103(1), 109(1), 191(2), 191(3), and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, particularly the allegation of murder under Section 103(1).

The Court followed the established bail principle that grant of bail depends on an assessment of the prima facie material, seriousness of the allegations, nature of the evidence, and the overall circumstances of the case.

It also considered the principle of consistency in relation to co-accused whose bail applications had earlier been rejected, while recognising that prolonged custody and delay in trial may warrant directions for expeditious disposal.

The Court found that the case was supported by direct evidence and that the applicant was specifically named in the FIR.

Although the defence relied on the testimony of P.W.1 Deepak Yadav and P.W.4 Surendra Yadav, the State relied on injured witness P.W.3 Chintaram, who supported the prosecution case, as well as the seizure of a bamboo stick from the applicant.

In view of the seriousness of the allegations, the existence of direct evidence, and the earlier rejection of bail applications filed by similarly placed co-accused, the Court was not inclined to reassess the evidentiary merits in the applicant’s favour at the bail stage.

However, the Court acknowledged that the applicant had remained in custody since 30 May 2025 and that the trial had progressed slowly, with only four of thirty witnesses examined.

It therefore addressed the prejudice arising from delay by directing the trial court to expedite the proceedings.

However, considering the applicant’s prolonged custody and lack of progress in the trial, the trial court was directed to expedite the proceedings and preferably conclude the trial within five months from receipt of the order.

A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court.