P&H HC Grants Bail To Murder Accused After 2½ Years In Custody, Citing 7 Witnesses Examined In 39 Trial Dates

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case initially registered under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC; the conspiracy charge was later deleted, and the final report proceeded only for murder under Section 302 IPC (corresponding to Section 103(1) BNS).

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner killed Karanvir Singh over their mutual interest in a woman. The petitioner denied the allegation and relied, among other matters, on CCTV footage said to show that he took the injured person to hospital and remained there with him.

The petitioner had been in custody since 10 May 2024. By the date of the bail decision, the trial court had examined seven witnesses over 39 hearing dates; the High Court noted that the material witnesses had been examined and that official witnesses remained.

Section 483 BNSS empowers the High Court to grant regular bail. In deciding bail, the court must exercise discretion judicially, balancing personal liberty and the presumption of innocence against the interests of the community and the administration of justice. Relevant considerations include the prima facie case, nature and gravity of the charge, possible punishment, risk of absconding, character and antecedents, likelihood of reoffending, and risk of witness tampering or obstruction of justice (State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi).

A detailed assessment of the evidence is not required at the bail stage, though the court should make a limited assessment of whether a prima facie case exists; the order should reflect consideration of the relevant factors (Amarmani Tripathi, quoting Kalyan Chandra Sarkar).

Pre-trial detention also carries serious consequences for an accused presumed innocent (Moti Ram v. State of M.P.).

Bail is conditional liberty, requiring a balance between the accused’s liberty and the security of the community (Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan).

The High Court acknowledged the gravity of the murder charge but weighed it against the petitioner’s detention since 10 May 2024 and the limited trial progress: only seven witnesses had been examined in 39 hearing dates.

It noted that the material witnesses had testified and that the prosecution had not shown that the petitioner could tamper with evidence or evade the process of law. The petitioner’s lack of criminal antecedents and the circumstances that he had taken the deceased to hospital and remained there were also considered.

The Court further observed, without determining the medical evidence, that the doctor had not ruled out vagal inhibition as a possible cause of death; the trial court remained responsible for assessing the evidence on the murder charge.

These were considered solely for deciding bail, not as findings on the merits.

It expressly stated that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not be treated as an opinion on the merits of the case.