Prior testimony of prosecution witnesses and an undertaking to cooperate may justify bail despite grave charges.

The appellant, arrayed as A4, appealed under Section 415 of the BNSS read with Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the Special Court’s order refusing bail.

He was charged in connection with the murder of Dinesh. The defence challenged the prosecution’s eyewitness case, relying in part on PW1’s cross-examination; the prosecution and the deceased’s mother opposed bail, citing the alleged eyewitness account and concerns about witness intimidation.

The trial had commenced: PW1 had been cross-examined, and the defence had obtained permission to defer cross-examination of other witnesses.

The Court recorded that the appellant had been in custody since 15 March 2026, had antecedents but was on bail in those cases, and had undertaken to cooperate with the trial and not dispute his identity.

Whether the appellant should be granted bail pending trial, having regard to the stage of the proceedings, custody, alleged offence, antecedents and concerns about witness intimidation.

Whether the bail order should be subject to conditions intended to secure the appellant’s attendance and cooperation with the trial.

The appeal was brought under Section 415 of the BNSS read with Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The Court applied the principles that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and that an accused is presumed innocent until guilt is proved.

The Court declined to assess whether PW1’s evidence undermined the prosecution’s eyewitness case, leaving that question to the trial court.

In deciding bail, it gave weight to the fact that the investigation was complete and the trial had commenced, that PW1 had already been cross-examined and the other witnesses had appeared, and that the appellant undertook to cooperate and not dispute his identity.

Although the complainant raised concerns about witness intimidation and the prosecution relied on the seriousness of the charge and the appellant’s antecedents, the Court noted that the appellant was already on bail in the earlier cases and considered conditional release appropriate.

The bond amount is stated inconsistently as “Rs.20,000/-” and “Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only” in the order.

The respondent police were permitted to seek cancellation of bail upon breach of a condition.