Criminal antecedents alone cannot justify denying bail when the accused is otherwise entitled to relief.

Facts

The petitioner, Accused No. 2, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a murder case arising from Crime No. 246/2023 of Hennur Police Station.

Source reference: pp. 2–4, paras. 1–3

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and others assaulted Marvesh, who later died in hospital.

Source reference: pp. 2–4, paras. 1–3

The petitioner had been in custody since 26 July 2023; his earlier bail petitions had been dismissed as not pressed, with liberty to renew them after examination of key witnesses.

Source reference: pp. 2–4, paras. 1–3

By the present petition, the key witnesses, examined as PW-1 and PW-9, had turned hostile.

Source reference: pp. 4–7, paras. 4–5, 8–10

Nine of 47 charge-sheet witnesses had been examined, and the State opposed bail on the ground that the petitioner had criminal antecedents.

Source reference: pp. 4–7, paras. 4–5, 8–10

Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail in light of his period in custody, the status and likely duration of the trial, and the evidence given by key witnesses.

Source reference: pp. 4–7, paras. 4, 8–10

2. Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, by themselves, warranted rejection of bail.

Source reference: p. 7, para. 10

Law Applied

Section 483 of the BNSS provides the basis for the High Court’s consideration of regular bail.

Source reference: p. 2

The petitioner faced charges under Sections 143, 120B, 302, 342, 201 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

Source reference: pp. 2–3, para. 1

Applying Prabhakar Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Court stated that criminal antecedents alone do not justify refusing bail where the accused is otherwise entitled to relief.

Source reference: p. 7, para. 10

Reasoning

The Court considered that the petitioner had spent more than three years in custody, the two identified key witnesses had turned hostile, and only nine of the 47 charge-sheet witnesses had been examined, making early completion of the trial unlikely.

Source reference: pp. 6–7, paras. 8–10

It also noted that Accused No. 3 had been granted bail in similar circumstances and Accused Nos. 4 to 6 had already been released on bail.

Source reference: p. 7, para. 10

The petitioner’s antecedents did not outweigh these considerations, as they were not, by themselves, a sufficient basis to deny bail under the principle in Prabhakar Tiwari.

Source reference: p. 7, para. 10

Holding

The Court allowed the petition and directed that the petitioner be released on bail in S.C. No. 1701/2023, subject to conditions including a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties, regular attendance at trial, non-interference with witnesses, no involvement in similar offences, a restriction on leaving the trial court’s jurisdiction without permission, and attendance at Hennur Police Station on the second and fourth Sundays of each month.