P&H HC Denies Bail To Accused Named Among Shooters In Attack That Killed Woman, Despite More Than Two Years In Custody

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case arising from an alleged first assault outside the complainant’s house and a subsequent firing attack at the family’s home.

The petitioner was named in the FIR as armed with a pistol and was alleged by an injured witness to have participated in the firing.

One person died from a firearm injury; the petitioner was arrested the next day, and a country-made pistol and live cartridge were allegedly recovered from him.

His earlier bail petition had been dismissed as withdrawn.

He relied on co-accused having been granted bail, his custody since 20 August 2024, and anticipated trial delay; the State opposed bail, citing his alleged role, the seriousness of the offence, and risks of absconding or influencing witnesses.

Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, governed the application for regular bail.

The Court assessed the bail request by considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the petitioner’s alleged role, the potential sentence, the circumstances of the case, and the risks identified by the State.

Parity is not automatic: the role and circumstances of each accused must be considered, and bail granted to co-accused does not entitle an applicant to the same relief where their alleged roles materially differ.

The Court found that the petitioner was named in the FIR as carrying a pistol, was identified by an injured witness as among those who fired, and was allegedly part of the group that returned to the house and launched the second attack.

His alleged firearm possession and participation distinguished him from the co-accused granted bail, whose alleged roles did not involve firearms.

The questions whether the recovered pistol was used in the incident and whether it was connected to the fatal injury were matters for trial.

Although the petitioner had been in custody since August 2024 and the delay was not shown to be attributable to him, the trial had not come to a standstill; the Court considered the gravity of the allegations, the pending examination of injured witnesses, and the State’s concerns about absconding or witness influence.

It held that custody and delay did not outweigh the alleged difference in role and seriousness of the case.

It requested the trial Court to take effective steps to secure the prosecution witnesses and endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously.

The Court clarified that its observations were solely for deciding the bail petition and would not affect the merits of the case.