Prolonged custody and weak identification evidence justified bail where trial had barely progressed.

The petitioner sought regular bail in FIR No. 413/2023 registered at Police Station Sadar Bazar for offences under Sections 307, 392, 397, 411, 120B and 34 IPC, and Sections 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution alleged that on 10 May 2023, the complainant Pawan and his colleague Baleshwar were returning to Sadar Bazar after collecting ₹55,55,000 from Karol Bagh when two motorcycle-borne persons intercepted them, robbed the cash at gunpoint, and fired a shot in the air while fleeing. The petitioner was alleged to be one of the robbers.

The petitioner had remained in custody for more than three years, while only four of twenty-five prosecution witnesses had been examined.

The complainant and the alleged eyewitness had not identified the petitioner in their testimony, and the petitioner contended that the principal material against him was the alleged confession of a co-accused made in police custody.

Whether the petitioner, having remained in custody for more than three years with only four of twenty-five prosecution witnesses examined, should be granted regular bail.

Whether the material relied upon by the prosecution—particularly the alleged CCTV evidence, non-identification by witnesses, and the alleged confession of a co-accused—was sufficient to justify the petitioner’s continued detention.

Whether the petitioner’s alleged criminal antecedents warranted denial of bail in the circumstances of the case.

The Court applied the statutory framework arising from the alleged offences under Sections 307, 392, 397, 411, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act.

The governing principle was that continued pre-trial detention must be assessed by examining the strength of the prosecution material, the likelihood and progress of trial, and the period of custody, while preserving the accused’s entitlement to liberty unless detention is justified by the circumstances of the case.

The Court also considered the evidentiary significance of the alleged CCTV material, witness identification, and the alleged confession of a co-accused.

The Court found that the prosecution’s assertion regarding CCTV evidence was not substantiated before it. Instead of producing footage depicting the robbery, the Investigating Officer produced still photographs showing persons walking on a road; the person identified as the petitioner was wearing a cap and mask, making identification from the photographs impossible.

The complainant and the alleged eyewitness had also not identified the petitioner, leaving the alleged confession of the co-accused as the only material expressly relied upon against him.

These evidentiary weaknesses were considered alongside the petitioner’s custody of more than three years and the slow progress of trial, with only four of twenty-five witnesses examined.

Although the State relied on the petitioner’s alleged involvement in thirteen other cases, the defence explained the status of those cases, and the Court found no sufficient reason to continue depriving the petitioner of his liberty.

The Court directed that the petitioner be released on regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court or Duty Magistrate.

A copy of the order was directed to be transmitted immediately to the concerned Jail Superintendent for informing the petitioner.