Ballistic mismatch, parity, and prolonged pretrial custody justified regular bail.

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in an FIR alleging that two persons stole a Remote Radio Unit from a telecom tower and one fired at an employee who attempted to apprehend them.

The petitioner was not named in the FIR; co-accused later implicated him, and the injured witness identified him in a TIP.

A pistol and cartridges were allegedly recovered at his instance, but the prosecution’s FSL ballistic report found that the evidence bullet did not match the test-fired bullets from the recovered pistol.

The chargesheet had been filed, charges framed, and the co-accused had been granted bail.

The petitioner had spent approximately eight months in judicial custody, while prosecution evidence had yet to be adduced.

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail, having regard to the ballistic mismatch, the evidence of identification, and the alleged recovery.

2. Whether parity with bailed co-accused, completion of investigation, and the petitioner’s period of custody supported release on bail.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, empowers the High Court to grant regular bail.

Under Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, as quoted in The State of Rajasthan v. Indraj Singh, bail requires a prima facie assessment and balancing relevant factors, including the nature of the offence, punishment, and the accused’s apparent involvement; a detailed determination of guilt is reserved for trial.

Parity is a relevant, but not conclusive, consideration: where the applicant’s case is materially similar to that of bailed co-accused, consistency may favour bail, subject to an individual assessment (Sagar v. State of U.P.; Harbhajan Singh v. State).

Bail is not punitive or preventive, and custody, completion of investigation, and the absence of a need for further custodial interrogation are relevant considerations (Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI).

Article 21’s speedy-trial protection applies irrespective of the nature of the offence; prolonged pre-trial detention without reasonable trial progress may weigh in favour of bail (Arvind Dham v. ED).

The Court also relied on the principle that, once a case for bail is made out, denial may impermissibly infringe Article 21 (Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India).

The Court considered the ballistic mismatch significant because it weakened the prima facie connection between the recovered pistol and the shooting, thereby diminishing the force of the alleged recovery as a distinguishing circumstance from the co-accused.

Given that the co-accused had been granted bail, the Court found no material distinction at this stage that justified treating the petitioner differently.

It also weighed the completed investigation and framed charges against the petitioner’s approximately eight months in custody and the fact that prosecution evidence had not yet been adduced.

Applying the principles governing parity, pre-trial detention, and speedy trial, the Court concluded that continued custody was not warranted.

The application and pending applications were disposed of; the Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail decision and would not affect the trial.