Bail granted after prolonged incarceration where injured witnesses turned hostile and trial remained incomplete.

The applicant, Pradeep Singh Gariya, sought bail in connection with FIR No. 0001 of 2025, registered at Police Station Kapkot, District Bageshwar, initially alleging offences under Sections 109, 352 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) against three other persons.

The applicant was not named in the FIR.

During investigation, he was arrested on 5 February 2025 and charge-sheeted along with three others for offences under Sections 3(5), 103(1), 109, 324(2), 351(2) and 352 BNS.

Section 103(1) was added after injured witness Sunder Singh Koranga died during treatment on 25 February 2025.

The applicant contended that there was no recovery from him, no criminal antecedents, and that the two other injured witnesses, Pankaj Ghatiyal and Yogesh Aithani, had been declared hostile and had not supported the prosecution regarding his presence at the incident.

The applicant had remained in custody since 5 February 2025 and the trial had not concluded.

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail in view of his non-nomination in the FIR, absence of recovery from him, lack of criminal antecedents, prolonged incarceration and the hostile testimony of two injured witnesses.

Whether, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, the applicant could be released on bail subject to appropriate conditions.

The Court applied the statutory framework governing bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, read with the offences alleged under Sections 3(5), 103(1), 109, 324(2), 351(2) and 352 of the BNS.

The governing bail principles require the Court to assess the nature of the accusation, the material connecting the accused with the offence, the possibility of interference with witnesses or evidence, the accused’s criminal antecedents, the period of custody and the progress of the trial.

Bail adjudication is not a determination of guilt, and the Court may grant bail without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.

The Court considered that the applicant was not named in the FIR, that no recovery was shown from him, and that he had no criminal antecedents.

It further noted that the two injured witnesses examined during trial had been declared hostile and had not supported the prosecution’s allegation concerning the applicant’s presence at the incident.

Although the State relied on other link evidence, the Court gave weight to the applicant’s custody since 5 February 2025, the fact that the trial remained incomplete, and the resulting prolonged incarceration.

Balancing these circumstances against the seriousness of the allegations, the Court held that the applicant deserved bail, while expressly refraining from making any determination on the merits.

The Court directed that Pradeep Singh Gariya be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

The release was subject to the conditions that he appear before the trial court on every date without seeking unnecessary adjournments and that he neither tamper with the evidence nor threaten any witness.