Prolonged incarceration and delayed trial may justify bail despite serious charges.

The petitioners, accused Nos. 7 and 8 in Crime No. 125/2020, sought regular bail in a case alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 447, 302 and 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

They had been in judicial custody since 16 September 2020, and the charge sheet had been filed.

The trial had commenced, but two of the three alleged eyewitnesses examined had not supported the prosecution.

Proceedings had also not progressed for about a year, reportedly because proceedings against a subsequently impleaded accused had been stayed.

The State opposed bail, citing the alleged pre-planned nature of the murder and the risk that the petitioners might not cooperate with the trial or might reoffend.

1. Whether the petitioners should be released on regular bail in light of their prolonged custody, the status and pace of the trial, and the evidence recorded to date.

2. Whether the State’s objections concerning the alleged seriousness and pre-planned nature of the offence warranted refusal of bail despite the circumstances relied on by the petitioners.

The petition was considered under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides the High Court’s power to grant bail.

The Court considered the petitioners’ period of custody, progress of the trial, the absence of identified criminal antecedents, and the risks of absconding or tampering with evidence in deciding whether bail was appropriate.

It also relied on Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and another, (2024) 9 SCC 813, and Vaibhav Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP (Crl.) No. 7416/2026, stating that their ratio supported the petitioners; the order does not further specify the propositions drawn from those decisions.

The Court considered that the petitioners had remained in custody for more than five years, the trial was already underway but had not progressed for about a year, and two examined eyewitnesses had not supported the prosecution.

It treated the eyewitnesses’ evidence as a mitigating consideration, not as establishing entitlement to acquittal.

The Court also noted that no criminal antecedents had been identified to support a conclusion that the petitioners were likely to abscond or tamper with evidence.

Balancing these considerations against the State’s objections, the Court held that the competing concerns could be addressed through appropriate bail conditions.

The petitioners were required to cooperate with the trial, refrain from tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses, attend the police station on the first and third Saturdays of each month, notify the police before leaving the police-station jurisdiction, provide and update their address and active mobile number, and not commit further offences.

The Court stated that breach of the conditions could lead the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail and that its observations were confined to disposal of the petition.