Bail granted to motorcycle owner where direct involvement in firing was absent during investigation.

The applicant filed his first bail application following his arrest on February 25, 2026, in connection with an incident at the Baretha toll plaza.

On February 23, 2026, two masked individuals on a motorcycle allegedly approached a toll booth; the pillion rider fired gunshots at a supervisor and left a threatening note regarding highway construction.

The applicant was implicated based on CCTV footage showing him near the motorcycle and the fact that the motorcycle was registered in his name.

The State opposed bail, noting that five empty cartridges were recovered and that a Test Identification Parade (TIP) and handwriting analysis were still pending.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), considering the nature of the allegations and the progress of the investigation.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

It considered the gravity of offences under Sections 109(1) (punishment for abetment), 351(3) (criminal intimidation), and 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The court also relied on the fundamental legal principle that prolonged pre-trial detention is an "anathema to the concept of liberty".

The court evaluated the applicant's role, noting the defense's argument that he was arraigned primarily as the registered owner of the vehicle and was not the primary shooter.

While the State argued that the investigation was in its early stages (pending TIP and expert reports), the court weighed this against the fact that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future.

The court determined that given the specific role attributed to the applicant and the necessity of protecting personal liberty against indefinite detention, the benefit of bail was warranted, provided stringent conditions were imposed to prevent tampering with evidence or witness intimidation.

It ordered the release of the applicant on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one solvent surety.

The holding is subject to strict conditions, including cooperation with the investigation, a prohibition on committing further offences (under penalty of automatic cancellation), and a restriction on leaving the country without prior permission.