P&H HC Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Firing At Police, Citing No Injuries And Six Months In Custody As Trial Has Yet To Begin

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, having regard to the allegations, the completed investigation, the period of custody and the stage of trial.

The court held

The Court allowed the petition and ordered the petitioner’s release on regular bail, subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court or Duty Magistrate and provided he was not required in another case.

It also directed

Conditions included no inducement, threat or promise to persons acquainted with the facts; disclosure and updating of his permanent address; no departure from India without prior permission; and regular appearance at trial unless exempted according to law.

The prosecution may seek cancellation of bail in the event of misuse or breach of conditions.

The Court made no observation on the merits of the case.

01Facts

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in FIR No. 48 dated 05.05.2026, registered under Sections 109, 190 and 191(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

pp. 1–2

The prosecution alleged that, after an initial firing incident attributed to a co-accused, the petitioner fired towards police officers while fleeing; a .32-bore pistol was allegedly recovered pursuant to his disclosure statement.

pp. 1–2

The petitioner had been in custody since 05.05.2026. The investigation was complete and the challan had been presented; the case had been committed to the Court of Session, but charges had not been framed.

pp. 3–5

Twelve prosecution witnesses, all official witnesses, had been cited.

pp. 3–5

The State also relied on the petitioner’s criminal antecedents and opposed bail.

p. 3

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, having regard to the allegations, the completed investigation, the period of custody and the stage of trial.

p. 1, 6

ii.Whether the State’s concerns about the seriousness of the alleged conduct, criminal antecedents and possible interference with the trial justified continued detention.

pp. 3, 5–6

03Law Applied

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, empowers the High Court to grant regular bail.

p. 1

In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, the Supreme Court stated that bail is intended to secure an accused’s attendance at trial, is neither punitive nor preventive, and must be considered in light of the presumption of innocence.

p. 5

In State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308, the Court described “bail, not jail” as the basic rule, subject to circumstances such as flight risk, obstruction of justice, repetition of offences or witness intimidation.

p. 5

The court must balance the accused’s liberty against the prosecution’s legitimate interests and may address risks through appropriate bail conditions.

p. 6

Provisions in the judgment · 14 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 439

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 109 Section 190 Section 191 Section 333 Section 118 Section 351 Section 3

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 307 Section 149 Section 148

Arms Act, 1959 Section 25 Section 27

04Reasoning

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegation that the petitioner fired towards police officers, but held that seriousness alone did not require continued incarceration.

p. 4

The initial firing was attributed to a co-accused; no injury was attributed to the petitioner’s alleged firing, and whether the requisite intention or knowledge existed was a matter for trial.

p. 4

The weapon had been recovered, the investigation was complete, and the challan had been filed. The petitioner had spent approximately six months in custody, charges had not been framed, and the trial was unlikely to conclude imminently.

pp. 4–6

The Court also found the general concern about witness interference unsubstantiated because all cited witnesses were official witnesses, while noting that the State’s concerns could be addressed by conditions of bail.

pp. 4–6