Prolonged incarceration and completion of material witness testimony constitute material change warranting regular bail.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in FIR No. 34/2021 registered at Police Station Mahendra Park, Delhi, for offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that on 22 January 2021, the applicant and three co-accused, acting in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted Rahul near I-Block, DDA Market, Jahangirpuri, causing injuries, including a head injury, which resulted in his death on 23 January 2021. The incident was allegedly captured on CCTV footage.

Charges under Sections 302/34 IPC were framed against all four accused on 20 April 2022. The applicant had remained in custody since 23 January 2021, for approximately five years and eight months. His earlier bail application had been dismissed on 25 July 2025. Thereafter, PW-2 Beni Prasad, the complainant and alleged eyewitness, was cross-examined on 13 November 2025 and stated that no CCTV footage had been shown to him and that he could not identify the applicant. Several medical and police witnesses were examined on 11 April 2026, leaving only formal and police witnesses to be examined.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 BNSS in view of the substantial period of custody and the stage of the trial?

Whether the examination of the material public witnesses constituted a material change in circumstances after dismissal of the earlier bail application?

Whether the applicant’s release on bail was likely to result in influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the grant of regular bail by the High Court or Court of Session.

The underlying prosecution case concerned Sections 302 and 34 IPC, relating respectively to murder and acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

A material change in circumstances after rejection of an earlier bail application can justify reconsideration, particularly where the material prosecution witnesses whose examination had earlier weighed against bail have subsequently been examined.

The Court noted that the evidentiary value of the CCTV footage and the conflicting or supporting testimony of the public witnesses—particularly PW-2’s inability to identify the applicant and PW-3’s alleged identification—was a matter for determination at trial and could not be conclusively assessed at the bail stage.

However, all public witnesses, including the complainant, had been examined, and the remaining witnesses were only formal or official witnesses. Consequently, the apprehension that the applicant might influence material witnesses no longer remained substantial.

The applicant had undergone more than five years and eight months of custody, while the trial had not concluded and there was no certainty as to when it would be completed.

These developments constituted a material change from the circumstances existing when the earlier bail application was dismissed on 25 July 2025, particularly because the earlier order had taken note of the fact that material prosecution witnesses were yet to be examined.

Balancing the gravity of the charge with the prolonged incarceration and advanced stage of the trial, the Court found the applicant entitled to bail.

Bail was subject to conditions that the applicant would not leave the NCT of Delhi or travel abroad without permission; deposit his original passport; provide and update his residential address; keep his mobile number operational and available to the Investigating Officer; refrain from inducing, threatening or influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence; and appear before the Trial Court on every date of hearing.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the disposal of the bail application and would not prejudice the trial on merits.