01Facts
The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case arising from an FIR alleging offences under Sections 302, 307 and 34 IPC and Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act.
pp. 1–2 · ¶ 1–3The prosecution alleged that the applicant shot Rahul Jha, while co-accused Naresh, the applicant’s father, held the deceased and exhorted the applicant; a pistol and live cartridge were also stated to have been recovered at the applicant’s instance.
pp. 1–2 · ¶ 1–3The applicant had spent about five years and nine months in custody, excluding a period on interim bail during which no misuse was reported; 19 of 25 witnesses, including the complainant and public witnesses, had been examined.
pp. 2–3 · ¶ 7, 9 · pp. 4–5 · ¶ 16The trial was awaiting the firearm FSL report, which had been obtained belatedly and was to be filed by supplementary charge-sheet after sanction.
p. 2 · ¶ 4The trial court had refused bail, citing the applicant’s alleged role as shooter, identification by public witnesses and concerns for the deceased’s family.
p. 2 · ¶ 5–602Issues
i.Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail notwithstanding the gravity of the alleged offences and his alleged role as the shooter.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 11–16ii.Whether prolonged pre-trial incarceration and delay in obtaining the FSL report, in circumstances where most witnesses had been examined, justified release on bail.
pp. 4–6 · ¶ 16–1903Law Applied
Section 483 BNSS empowered the High Court to grant regular bail. The Court applied the principle that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, and that the gravity of an offence, by itself, does not justify refusing bail.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 14–15, citing Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 12 SCC 660, and Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P., (2020) 11 SCC 648It further applied the Article 21 right to a speedy trial: where timely trial is not reasonably possible and the accused has undergone significant incarceration, prolonged detention may favour bail.
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 17–19, citing Liakat Ali v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, order dated 16 July 2026 · Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713 · and Arvind Dham v. Enforcement Directorate, (2026) 7 SCC 330Provisions in the judgment · 9 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302Section 307Section 34
Arms Act, 1959 Section 25Section 27Section 54Section 59Section 39
04Reasoning
Although the applicant was alleged to be the shooter and his role was graver than that of co-accused Naresh, the Court held that parity was unavailable but was not determinative of the application.
p. 4 · ¶ 16The Court weighed the applicant’s substantial period in custody, the examination of 19 of 25 witnesses—including the complainant and public witnesses—and the reduced risk of witness influence.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 16It also considered that the FSL delay was not attributable to the applicant, that he had no prior involvement, and that he had complied with the terms of interim bail and surrendered on time.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 16The Court considered the safety concerns regarding the deceased’s family capable of being addressed through stringent bail conditions.
p. 5 · ¶ 1605Holding
The Court allowed the application and admitted the applicant to regular bail on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like amount, subject to conditions including travel restrictions, address and contact disclosures, monthly reporting to the IO, non-contact with the complainant’s family and witnesses, and attendance at every trial hearing.
pp. 6–8 · ¶ 20–21The trial court was requested to expedite the proceedings, and the Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and would not affect the trial.
p. 8 · ¶ 22–25Original Court PDF
PradeepvsState Nct Of Delhi
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
