P&H HC Grants Bail to Two Men Accused of Auto-Rickshaw Robbery After Over a Year in Custody, With Trial Halfway Through

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioners should be granted regular bail pending trial, having regard to their period of custody and the likely time required to conclude the trial.

The court held

The Court allowed both petitions and ordered the petitioners’ release on bail upon furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the competent court, provided they were not required in another case.

It also directed

It directed them not to threaten or influence prosecution witnesses and left the trial court to decide the case independently and expeditiously.

The prosecution may seek cancellation of bail if either petitioner is found engaging in similar activity in future.

01Facts

The petitioners sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case arising from FIR No. 256 dated 30 August 2025, registered at Police Station Uchana, Jind, under Sections 309(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

p. 2 · pp. 3–4

The prosecution alleged that they robbed an auto-rickshaw driver of his vehicle, cash and mobile phone, threatening him with knives.

pp. 3–4

The State submitted that the auto-rickshaw, Rs. 650, the complainant’s mobile phone and two knives had been recovered, and that the petitioners faced other criminal cases.

p. 5

Both petitioners had been in custody since 31 August 2025; the investigation was complete and the challan had been filed. An earlier bail petition by Ankit alias Goli had been withdrawn.

p. 2 · pp. 4–5

At the hearing, the State informed the Court that 15 of 30 prosecution witnesses had been examined.

p. 6

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioners should be granted regular bail pending trial, having regard to their period of custody and the likely time required to conclude the trial.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 10–12

ii.Whether the allegations, recoveries and petitioners’ other criminal cases warranted refusal of bail.

p. 5 · ¶ 8–9

03Law Applied

The petitions were considered under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, identified in the judgment as the successor to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

p. 2 · ¶ 1

The Court applied the stated bail considerations of custody already undergone, the stage of the trial and the likelihood of delay in its conclusion. No judicial precedents were cited, and the judgment did not set out any further statutory test.

p. 6 · ¶ 12

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 439

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 309 Section 3

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 392 Section 34

04Reasoning

The Court acknowledged the serious allegation of robbery and the State’s reliance on the recoveries and other criminal cases.

p. 5 · ¶ 8–10

It nevertheless considered that the petitioners had been in custody for approximately one year and two months and that only half of the 30 prosecution witnesses had been examined, making a lengthy trial likely.

p. 6 · ¶ 10–12

On the totality of those circumstances, the Court found it appropriate to grant bail.

p. 6 · ¶ 12