Facts
The applicant filed a fourth bail application in connection with Crime No. 295/2024 for offenses under Sections 452, 294, 506, 307, and 34 of the IPC
Source reference: para. 1The prosecution alleged that on July 24, 2024, the applicant, in an intoxicated state, entered the complainant’s home armed with an axe and assaulted a six-month-old child, Om Rathore, inflicting severe head injuries
Source reference: para. 3, 5The applicant has been in custody since June 25, 2024
Source reference: para. 4His three previous bail applications were rejected on merits
Source reference: para. 2The applicant sought bail on new grounds, citing false implication due to enmity, parity with co-accused who were granted bail, the hostility of prosecution witnesses, and trial delays caused by the subsequent arrest of an absconding co-accused
Source reference: para. 4Issues
1. Whether the applicant established a substantial change in circumstances to warrant the grant of a fourth bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)
Source reference: para. 72. Whether the hostility of prosecution witnesses and the delay in trial due to the arrest of a co-accused entitle the applicant to bail despite the gravity of the allegations
Source reference: para. 7-8Law Applied
The Court considered the provisions of Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC) regarding regular bail
Source reference: para. 1The Court applied the principle that subsequent bail applications require a "substantial change in circumstances" for reconsideration on merits
Source reference: para. 7furthermore, it balanced the right to a speedy trial against the nature and gravity of the accusation, the severity of the injuries, and the potential for tampering with evidence when witnesses fail to support the prosecution’s case
Source reference: para. 5, 7Reasoning
The Court observed that the applicant failed to demonstrate any substantial change in circumstances since the rejection of the first three bail applications
Source reference: para. 7Regarding the applicant’s argument that witnesses had not supported the prosecution, the Court held that such a fact often suggests a reasonable apprehension of witness tampering rather than innocence at the bail stage
Source reference: para. 7The Court highlighted the "high degree of brutality" involved in the case, noting that the applicant specifically targeted a six-month-old infant with a lethal weapon (an axe), causing grievous head injuries
Source reference: para. 5, 8While acknowledging the delay in the trial caused by the re-examination of witnesses following a co-accused's arrest, the Court determined that the gravity of the offense outweighed the period of incarceration
Source reference: para. 7, 10Holding
The High Court rejected the fourth bail application, finding the offense too serious and the manner of commission too brutal to merit release
To address the trial delay, the Court directed the trial court to separate the applicant’s trial from the co-accused (if not already done) and to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, preferably within two months
Source reference: para. 10Original Court PDF
AMAN RATREvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in