Grant of bail on grounds of prolonged pre-trial detention and limited role in alleged assault.

The applicant, a 63-year-old man, filed a fourth bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

He was arrested on July 23, 2024, in connection with an incident involving a fatal armed assault on one Narottam.

While co-accused Lokendra and Raghvendra allegedly fired the fatal shots, the applicant was accused of being present with a stick and assaulting others at the scene.

The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated with "omnibus and general allegations," had no role in the actual killing, and cited his prolonged incarceration (since July 2024) as a ground for bail.

The State and Complainant opposed bail, arguing the applicant was an abettor present at the scene and had prior knowledge of the threat.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail on the grounds of prolonged pre-trial custody and the nature of his specific involvement in the alleged crime.

The Court considered Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, regarding bail provisions (replacing Section 439 of the CrPC).

It evaluated the principles of criminal liability under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(2), 109, and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, along with Sections 25 and 30 of the Arms Act.

The court also addressed the complainant's reliance on Section 114 of the IPC (now corresponding to relevant BNS provisions) regarding the liability of an abettor present during an offense.

Crucially, the court relied on the constitutional principle that "prolonged pre-trial detention is an anathema to the concept of liberty".

The Court balanced the gravity of the charges (murder and rioting) against the specific role attributed to the applicant and his personal circumstances.

It noted that the primary allegation against the 63-year-old applicant was the use of a stick rather than a firearm, and there was no allegation that he assaulted the deceased.

The Court observed that while independent witnesses had been examined, 23 witnesses (including police) were still pending, suggesting the trial would not conclude in the near future.

The Court found that the applicant’s age, the duration of his judicial custody since July 2024, and the lack of specific overt acts regarding the deceased justified the extension of bail, despite the opposition regarding his status as an alleged abettor.

The applicant was ordered to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one solvent surety, subject to conditions including cooperation with the trial and a prohibition on committing further offenses or tampering with evidence.