Bail granted where the charge sheet was filed and trial had not commenced despite prolonged custody.

The applicants, Ujjawal and Ashu @ Ashu Parmar, were implicated in FIR No. 1151 of 2025 dated 15 November 2025, registered at Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar, for offences under Sections 109(1) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act.

Both applicants had been in custody since 8 December 2025. The police had filed the charge-sheet, cognizance had been taken, but the trial had not commenced.

They also had one criminal antecedent in Case Crime No. 997 of 2024 under Sections 109 and 3(5) of the BNS, in which the same victim was involved; they had already been granted bail in that case.

The State opposed bail, relying on the antecedent and alleging that the applicants had again used firearms against the victim, but did not dispute that the charge-sheet had been filed and custodial interrogation was no longer required.

Whether the applicants should be released on bail in connection with FIR No. 1151 of 2025, considering the nature of the allegations, their criminal antecedent, period of custody, and filing of the charge-sheet?

Whether the absence of substantial progress in the trial, including the fact that the trial had not commenced, justified grant of bail subject to appropriate conditions?

The Court considered the alleged offences under Sections 109(1) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act.

It applied the established discretionary principles governing bail, including consideration of the period of incarceration, completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the need for further custodial interrogation, the progress of the trial, the possibility of interference with witnesses, and the applicants’ antecedents.

The Court also relied on conditions designed to secure the applicants’ attendance at trial and prevent intimidation or contact with the victim and informant.

The Court balanced the seriousness of the allegations and the applicants’ criminal antecedent against the fact that they had remained in custody since 8 December 2025, the charge-sheet had already been filed, and no further custodial interrogation was required.

Although the State highlighted that the same victim was involved in the earlier case and that the present allegations concerned firearm use, it did not dispute the completion of investigation or the absence of a need for further custody.

The Court further noted that the trial had not commenced and that there had been no substantial progress.

On these cumulative considerations, without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court held that the applicants deserved the benefit of bail.

The release was subject to the conditions that: (i) each applicant report to the nearest police station on the first day of every month for nine months and provide his and his parents’ contact numbers to the concerned SHO; (ii) each applicant attend every hearing and avoid unnecessary adjournments; and (iii) neither applicant threaten the victim or informant or attempt to contact them.

The prosecution was granted liberty to seek cancellation of bail in the event of breach of any condition.