Prolonged custody and trial delay support bail where no specific stabbing role is attributed to the accused.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) in a case arising from an attack in which Karan Parihar died.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant was among those who surrounded the principal assailants to prevent the deceased’s family from intervening; there was no allegation that the applicant stabbed the deceased.

The applicant had been in custody since 7 April 2023.

Charges had been framed, but only two of 83 prosecution witnesses had been examined.

The applicant claimed to have been a minor at the time of the offence, but the Trial Court had retained his recorded date of birth on the basis of verified school records.

The State opposed bail, while noting that the applicant was seen standing at the scene and that a similarly placed co-accused had been granted bail.

1. Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail, having regard to his alleged role, period of custody, progress of trial, antecedents, and the circumstances of co-accused.

2. Whether the applicant’s asserted youth and claimed minority at the time of the offence weighed in favour of bail.

Section 483 of the BNSS provides the basis for the High Court’s consideration of an application for regular bail.

The applicant faced charges under Sections 302, 308, 34, 147, 148, 149 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; those provisions defined the offences charged but the judgment did not separately analyse their elements.

The Court cited no precedent and did not set out a broader bail test; it assessed the application cumulatively by reference to the applicant’s alleged role, custody, trial progress, age, antecedents, and the bail granted to a similarly placed co-accused.

The Court found that the applicant had remained in custody for approximately three years and six months, while only two of 83 witnesses had been examined, making early completion of trial unlikely.

It also noted that the applicant was not alleged to have stabbed the deceased and was instead shown at the scene with others around the principal accused.

The Court further considered the applicant’s young age, absence of criminal antecedents, and the grant of bail to a similarly placed co-accused.

Taking these circumstances together, it found a case for release on bail.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not affect the trial.