Bail was denied as the trial neared completion, with only one prosecution witness remaining.

The applicants, Saem Hussain and Mafuzur Rahman, Bangladeshi nationals, were accused in Nonghyllam P.S. Case No. 09 of 2025, subsequently registered as Sessions Case No. 11 of 2025.

They faced charges under Sections 3(5), 109(2), 118(2), 140(1), 308(5), 332(a) and 333 of the BNSS, 2023, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

The applications were their third requests for bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023.

The applicants contended that they had been falsely implicated, that the prosecution evidence did not disclose a prima facie case, and that nine of the ten prosecution witnesses had already been examined and discharged.

The State opposed bail on the grounds that the applicants were foreign nationals likely to abscond and that the alleged offences, including offences under the Arms Act, were serious.

Whether the applicants, who were foreign nationals and faced serious offences including offences under the Arms Act and the Explosive Substances Act, should be released on bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023.

Whether bail ought to be granted when nine out of ten prosecution witnesses had already been examined and only one witness remained, or whether the trial should instead be directed to conclude expeditiously.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant bail.

It also considered the statutory provisions forming the basis of the prosecution, namely Sections 3(5), 109(2), 118(2), 140(1), 308(5), 332(a) and 333 of the BNSS, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

In assessing bail, the Court considered the seriousness of the alleged offences, the applicants’ status as foreign nationals, the risk of absconding, the availability of sureties, and the advanced stage of the trial.

The Court considered the applicants’ submission that the prosecution evidence did not establish a prima facie case and that adequate local sureties were available to secure their attendance.

However, the State’s objections concerning the applicants’ foreign nationality, the possibility of absconding, and the seriousness of the alleged offences, particularly those under the Arms Act, weighed against release on bail.

Although the Court noted that only one of the ten prosecution witnesses remained to be examined, it treated the near completion of the trial as a reason to require the Trial Court to conclude the proceedings expeditiously rather than grant bail at that stage.

The Court therefore found that the applicants had not established sufficient grounds for exercising the bail jurisdiction under Section 483 of the BNSS.

The Trial Court was requested to proceed with the trial expeditiously and conclude it at the earliest, particularly since only one prosecution witness remained to be examined.

Both applications were accordingly rejected and disposed of.