Investigative irregularities and trial delay justify bail notwithstanding the accused's criminal antecedents.

The applicant was arrested on 24.04.2024 in connection with Crime No. 319 of 2024 for offences including murder (Section 302 IPC) and violations of the Arms Act.

The prosecution alleged that on 22.04.2024, the applicant and co-accused assaulted the deceased, Aryan Tomar, with a knife and fists, resulting in his death.

The applicant’s first two bail applications were rejected on 02.04.2025 and 24.09.2025.

Subsequently, a police inquiry report dated 04.02.2025 and a supplementary charge-sheet filed on 22.01.2026 indicated that the Investigating Officer (IO) committed serious irregularities, that the applicant was not present at the crime scene, and that memorandum statements were recorded under police pressure.

Trial progress was further delayed by the filing of the supplementary charge-sheet against a co-accused, necessitating a restart of certain trial proceedings.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail based on new evidence from internal police inquiries and a supplementary charge-sheet suggesting non-involvement, despite previous rejections and criminal antecedents.

2. Whether the potential delay in the conclusion of the trial due to the filing of a supplementary charge-sheet serves as a valid ground for granting bail.

The court primarily considered Sections 302, 294, 506, 323, and 34 of the IPC, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The court applied the principle from Prabhakar Tewari v. State of UP and another (2020) 11 SCC 648, which establishes that criminal antecedents cannot be the sole basis for rejecting a bail application.

The court also referenced Pappu @ Rajaram v. State of MP (MCRC-15398 of 2022) regarding the weight of past criminal history in bail adjudications.

The court observed a significant shift in circumstances following the rejection of the previous bail applications.

It noted that the Additional Superintendent of Police’s inquiry report dated 04.02.2025 explicitly found that the applicant was not present at the spot and that the IO had fabricated evidence.

Several witnesses, including injured persons, consistently stated the applicant was not involved.

The court highlighted that the supplementary charge-sheet filed by the police themselves admitted a lack of evidence against the applicant.

The court reasoned that the trial, which had seen 14 witnesses examined, would now be delayed as the process might restart for the newly added co-accused.

Applying the Prabhakar Tewari precedent, the court determined that the applicant's six criminal antecedents did not outweigh the lack of prima facie evidence in the present case and the prolonged pre-trial detention.

The court ordered the applicant to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety of the like sum, subject to conditions including cooperation with the trial, no further criminal activity, and a prohibition on leaving India without permission.

The court clarified that these observations were limited to the bail proceedings and would not influence the final merits of the trial.