Gravity of brutal assault on infant precludes bail despite trial delay and hostile witnesses.

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

The 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

The applicant has been in custody since June 25, 2024

His three previous bail applications were rejected on merits

The 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

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

The Court applied the principle that subsequent bail applications require a "substantial change in circumstances" for reconsideration on merits

furthermore, 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

The Court observed that the applicant failed to demonstrate any substantial change in circumstances since the rejection of the first three bail applications

Regarding 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

The 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

While 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

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