### Long Incarceration Alone Insufficient for Bail in Heinous Offences Involving Contract Killing and Criminal Conspiracy

The petitioner filed an application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

He is an accused in Gunupur PS Case No. 98 of 2023 for offences under Sections 364, 302, 201, 120(B), and 34 of the IPC.

The prosecution alleges that the petitioner hired a contract killer, Raja @ V. Rajesh, to murder one Gouriprasad Mishra.

Following that murder, when the contract killer demanded the agreed sum of Rs. 30,00,000/-, the petitioner and his associates allegedly murdered the contract killer to avoid payment.

The petitioner has been in custody for approximately 2 years and 8 months.

1. Whether the length of incarceration (approx. 2 years and 8 months) entitles the petitioner to bail despite the nature and gravity of the alleged double murder.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail on the grounds that his implication is based primarily on the statement of a co-accused.

The court applied Section 483 of the BNSS regarding bail.

It emphasized that in cases of serious and heinous crimes, the period of custody is not the sole criterion for granting bail, relying on the precedent set by the Apex Court in *State of Bihar and another v. Amit Kumar @ Bachcha Rai (2017) 13 SCC 751*, which held that the seriousness of the offence outweighs the duration of time spent in jail.

The court also considered the gravity of offences under Sections 302 (Murder) and 120(B) (Criminal Conspiracy) of the IPC.

The court dismissed the petitioner’s argument regarding long incarceration by citing *Amit Kumar @ Bachcha Rai*, noting that for "gruesome" and "heinous" offences, a period of two and a half years is insufficient for a grant of bail.

The court observed that the allegations reveal a "horrendous act" involving a conspiracy to commit a double murder—first of a target and subsequently of the hired assassin.

While the petitioner argued that the evidence was based on inadmissible co-accused statements, the court found that the "nature and gravity of the offence" and the current progress of the trial (where three witnesses have already been examined) weighed against the petitioner.

The court determined that the seriousness of the crime took precedence over the custody period.

The court held that given the gravity of the accusations involving a contract killing and subsequent murder of the killer, it was not inclined to grant bail.

The BLAPL was disposed of with directions to transmit a copy of the order to the trial court.