Prolonged custody does not justify bail where the defence is responsible for trial delay.

The applicant sought regular bail in FIR No. 232/2018, Police Station Bawana, for offences under Sections 307, 120B, 174A and 34 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and his associates entered a gym and opened fire; CCTV footage played in court depicted the applicant firing a pistol, with three rounds hitting the injured witness, Monu

The applicant relied on parity with co-accused Sumit @ Kalu, prolonged custody, and—raised during the hearing—the examination of public witnesses

The State attributed delay to the defence and submitted that the applicant had remained a proclaimed offender for more than a year

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Sumit @ Kalu

Whether prolonged custody and the examination of public witnesses justified granting bail, having regard to the causes of delay and the material against the applicant

The application concerned regular bail in a case involving the offences charged under Sections 307, 120B, 174A and 34 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The court assessed the asserted grounds of parity, prolonged custody and witness examination against the applicant’s attributed role, the trial record as presented, and the prosecution evidence, including the injured witness’s testimony and CCTV footage.

No specific precedent or separate statutory test for bail was cited in the judgment.

The court rejected parity because the applicant’s alleged pistol fire caused three bullet injuries, whereas co-accused Sumit’s pistol allegedly jammed and did not function.

It declined to treat custody and trial delay as grounds for release, noting that the applicant had not produced trial-court ordersheets to show that the defence was not responsible for the delay; it also recorded that defence counsel had failed to appear for the injured witness’s scheduled cross-examination despite the date having been fixed in the bail proceedings.

Finally, the court considered the injured witness’s unchallenged testimony and the CCTV footage depicting the incident significant despite the submission that public witnesses had been examined.

dismissed the application