P&H HC Bails Alleged Getaway Driver In Sarpanch Murder After Nearly 3 Years In Custody, With Only 2 Of 30 Witnesses Fully Examined

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a murder case concerning Sandeep Kumar Sarpanch @ Cheena.

The petitioner was arrested on 7 January 2024; the prosecution alleged that he drove the car used by the principal assailant and associates to flee after the murder. The fatal shot was attributed to a co-accused.

The challan cited 30 prosecution witnesses, of whom two had been fully examined and one partly examined. The petitioner had been in custody for 2 years, 9 months and 30 days. Two co-accused had been granted regular bail.

This was the petitioner’s fifth bail petition; his previous petition had been dismissed as withdrawn on 24 September 2025.

Section 483 of the BNSS provides the basis for the regular-bail application. Article 21 protects an accused’s right to a speedy trial; as stated in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, where the prosecution or court cannot ensure a speedy trial, the seriousness of the alleged offence alone should not defeat a bail plea, and the presumption of innocence remains relevant.

Under the principles set out in Rafiq Khan v. State of Haryana and another, a successive regular-bail petition is maintainable, but ordinarily requires a substantial change in circumstances and cogent reasons for granting relief.

The petitioner’s antecedents are relevant but, under Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another and the other authorities cited, antecedents alone do not require refusal of bail where the circumstances of the case otherwise justify it.

The Court considered the petitioner’s alleged role as the getaway driver, the evidence then available, the fact that the complainant had been examined, and the bail granted to similarly placed co-accused. It also weighed the petitioner’s custody of more than 2 years and 9 months against the slow progress of the trial: only two of 30 prosecution witnesses had been fully examined, making an early conclusion unlikely.

The Court found no tangible material indicating that the petitioner would abscond or interfere with prosecution evidence, and held that his other FIR and jail offences were not, by themselves, sufficient to deny bail in this case.

Although this was a successive petition, extended custody, the trial’s pace and the complainant’s completed testimony after withdrawal of the earlier petition provided grounds to consider it favourably.

The Court left disputed merits to be determined at trial.

Bail was subject to conditions, including non-interference with evidence, attendance at trial, deposit of any passport, and restrictions on changing his mobile number without permission. The State or complainant may seek cancellation of bail in the event of breach.

The Court made clear that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits.