Prolonged custody and substantial trial progress warranted bail despite the grave murder charge.

The applicants sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in a case arising from the death of Bunty @ Vicky, with charges under Sections 302, 201, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

They had been in custody since 8 February 2023; the investigation was complete, the charge-sheet had been filed, and substantial trial evidence had been recorded.

They relied on their prolonged custody, the evidence already recorded, and the grant of bail to co-accused Anshul Antil.

The State relied, among other things, on an FSL report said to match the deceased’s DNA profile with clothing recovered at the applicants’ instance.

A prosecution witness who was expected to testify about the alleged sale of the applicants’ mobile phones had been dropped because he was untraceable.

1. Whether the applicants should be granted regular bail, having regard to the seriousness of the charges, the evidence relied upon by the prosecution, and the applicable bail principles.

2. Whether prolonged custody, the stage of trial, and the release of a co-accused supported granting bail to the applicants.

Section 483 of the BNSS confers on the High Court and Court of Session the power to grant regular bail; the charges in this case were under Sections 302, 201, 120B and 34 of the IPC.

Under State of Maharashtra v. Sitaram Popat Vetal, the court must give reasons for granting bail and consider the accusation’s nature and gravity, the supporting evidence, the risk of witness tampering or threats, and other relevant circumstances.

Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) identifies relevant considerations including the offence’s gravity, the accused’s position, risk of absconding or reoffending, witness tampering, and the history of the case and investigation.

The general principle is “bail, not jail,” subject to risks such as flight, obstruction of justice, reoffending or witness intimidation (State of Rajasthan v. Balchand).

The gravity of a Section 302 charge alone does not require refusal of bail (Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P.).

Pre-trial detention is not punitive, and bail principally serves to secure the accused’s appearance at trial (Sanjay Chandra v. CBI).

The Court also considered Zahur Haider Zaidi v. CBI, which treated custody duration and likely trial duration as relevant and noted that concerns about influencing witnesses may be addressed through bail cancellation if misconduct occurs.

The Court considered the prosecution’s reliance on the DNA evidence from recovered clothing, as well as the applicants’ response relying on State of Rajasthan v. Hanuman, without determining the evidence’s ultimate merits at the bail stage.

It weighed the seriousness of the charge against the applicants’ custody of more than three years and seven months, the substantial progress of the trial, the fact that a material witness had been dropped, and the release of co-accused Anshul Antil in circumstances relevant to these applications.

Applying the principles governing bail and pre-trial detention, the Court found the totality of those circumstances sufficient to grant bail, subject to safeguards.

The Trial Court was requested to expedite the proceedings; the Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail applications and would not affect the trial.