Bail denied where grave homicide allegations are supported by eyewitnesses and the trial is at an advanced stage.

The applicants were arrested on 13 June 2025 in connection with a case alleging offences under Sections 296, 351(3), 109(2), 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that they assaulted the deceased, who later died while undergoing treatment.

This was their third bail application: the first was withdrawn with liberty to renew after examination of material witnesses, and the second was withdrawn with a direction to expedite the trial.

The applicants argued that the alleged eyewitnesses had not supported the prosecution and that the deceased’s injuries resulted from a fall; they also relied on their period of custody and the time required to conclude the trial.

The State opposed bail, asserting that three eyewitnesses supported the prosecution and that the trial was at an advanced stage, with 15 of 25 witnesses examined.

1. Whether the applicants should be granted regular bail in their third application, having regard to the allegations, material on record, and circumstances of the assault.

2. Whether the applicants’ custody and the progress of the trial justified release on bail at this stage.

The alleged offences were under Sections 296, 351(3), 109(2), 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court did not cite a specific statutory bail provision or precedent.

It assessed the application by reference to the nature of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, the injuries, the eyewitness statements, the stage of the trial, and the history of the earlier bail applications.

The Court considered the applicants’ arguments about the reliability of the eyewitness accounts and the cause of the deceased’s injuries, alongside the State’s submissions.

It noted the allegations and injuries, the statements of the three named eyewitnesses recorded during investigation, and that 15 of 25 witnesses had already been examined.

Given the trial’s advanced stage and the prior bail applications, which had been dismissed as withdrawn, the Court was not persuaded to grant bail.

It reiterated its expectation that the trial Court proceed expeditiously, as previously directed in the order dated 16 February 2026.