Prolonged custody and trial delay warrant bail where material witnesses have been examined.

The appellant was charged in connection with the death of Chandrashekar, allegedly caused when the appellant drove a Scorpio into the deceased’s motorcycle and ran over him.

The case was registered under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; the charge sheet also invoked Sections 307 and 120B read with Section 34 IPC.

The appellant had been in judicial custody since 18 March 2023.

After earlier bail applications were rejected, the High Court had directed the trial court to conclude the trial within four months, but the trial remained incomplete; the prosecution sought an eight-month extension and filed an additional charge sheet naming eight further witnesses.

The trial court rejected the appellant’s latest bail application on 31 July 2026, prompting this appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act.

1. Whether the trial court’s rejection of bail should be set aside in light of the appellant’s prolonged custody and the continued delay in concluding the trial.

2. Whether the appellant could be released on bail subject to conditions, given that the remaining witnesses were official witnesses and the material witnesses had already been examined.

The appeal was brought under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, challenging an order rejecting bail.

The underlying prosecution concerned offences under Sections 302, 307, 120B and 34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

The Court applied no cited precedent or expressly articulated general bail test; its decision turned on the appellant’s period in custody, the delay in completing trial, the stage of the evidence, and the risk posed to the remaining witnesses.

The appellant had remained in custody since March 2023, and the trial had not concluded despite an earlier direction to finish it within four months.

The Court noted that the material witnesses had already been examined and that the witnesses yet to be examined, including those named in the additional charge sheet, were official witnesses.

It therefore considered the risk of interference with the remaining evidence insufficient to justify continued detention, subject to conditions protecting the witnesses and facilitating the trial.

It granted the appellant bail in Spl.C. No. 617/2023, subject to a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum, a prohibition on threatening or tampering with prosecution witnesses, and requirements to cooperate with the trial and attend hearings unless exempted.