Bail granted where injured witness exonerated the applicant and co-accused with identical roles were previously released.

The applicant filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, regarding Crime No. 63/2025.

The prosecution alleged that on April 18, 2025, the applicant and five other co-accused (mostly family members) assaulted Ishwar Singh over an alleged illicit relationship with a co-accused's wife.

Specifically, it was alleged the applicant helped restrain the victim while another co-accused mutilated the victim's private parts with a sword.

The applicant has been in custody since May 3, 2025.

During the trial, the injured victim (PW-1) was examined and did not support the accusations against the applicant.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the injured witness's testimony and the principle of parity with co-accused who were previously granted bail?

2. Whether continued incarceration is necessary given the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents and the current stage of the trial?

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

It further applied the principle of parity, noting that co-accused Sardar Singh, Darbar Singh, and Mangu Singh had already been extended the benefit of bail in related M.Cr.C. proceedings.

Additionally, the court considered Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 346 of BNSS) regarding the timely examination of witnesses to ensure the trial's integrity.

The court reasoned that the primary prosecution witness/injured party (PW-1) had exonerated the applicant during his testimony before the trial court.

It was noted that the evidence against the applicant was identical to that of co-accused Mangu Singh, who had already been granted bail, thus establishing a case for parity.

The court emphasizes that the applicant is a 60-year-old agriculturist with no prior criminal record, reducing the risk of him fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence.

The court concluded that since the material witness had already been examined, the necessity for continued incarceration was diminished, especially as the final determination of "veracity and intention" would only happen at the conclusion of the trial.

The holding is contingent upon five specific conditions, including regular court appearance, non-involvement in similar offences, and a prohibition against threatening witnesses.

The court clarified that the observations made were limited to the bail application and would not affect the final merits of the trial.