Prolonged detention, trial delay, and the complainant’s no-objection support grant of regular bail.

The appellants were arrested in connection with Crime No. 369/2025, registered for alleged offences under Sections 140(2), 140(3) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The prosecution alleged that the appellants and others abducted and confined the complainant, assaulted him and demanded ransom, knowing that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste; the alleged motive included a prior land dispute and recovery of money

The appellants appealed under Section 14-A(2) of the 1989 Act against the Special Judge’s orders refusing bail.

They submitted that the complainant and his wife had been examined as prosecution witnesses but had turned hostile, that they had been falsely implicated due to the land dispute, and that they had been in custody since 27 June 2025 and 13 August 2025, respectively

The complainant appeared by video conference and consented to bail

1. Whether the appellants’ appeals against the Special Judge’s orders refusing bail should be allowed and they should be released on regular bail under Section 14-A(2) of the 1989 Act

2. Whether the appellants’ custody, the complainant’s consent, and the likely time required to conclude the trial supported granting bail

Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 provides the appellate route invoked by the appellants to challenge the Special Judge’s orders refusing bail

The alleged offences arose under Sections 140(2), 140(3) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(v-a) of the 1989 Act

The Court applied its bail discretion by considering the circumstances before it, including the complainant’s position, the period of detention and the anticipated duration of the trial; it cited no precedent or further specific legal test

The Court considered that the complainant had no objection to bail, the appellants had been detained for a substantial period, and the trial was likely to take further time

On those circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, it concluded that the appellants were entitled to regular bail

It directed that each appellant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to conditions against influencing persons acquainted with the case, prejudicing a fair and expeditious trial, and failure to attend each trial date