Prolonged incarceration and delayed trial warrant bail even in serious offences.

The petitioner, accused No. 1, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case arising from Crime No. 64 of 2022, registered by Cottonpet Police Station and pending as S.C. No. 1824 of 2022.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner assaulted Archana with a knife; she later died in hospital.

The petitioner was charged under Sections 302, 307 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and had been in custody for nearly four years and six months.

Accused No. 2 had been granted bail.

By the date of the petition, only five of the 43 prosecution witnesses had been examined; the injured eyewitness, CW-2, had testified as PW-5.

The petition was considered under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; the charges in the pending case were under Sections 302, 307 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Court relied on Article 21 of the Constitution and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693, observing that where the State or the court cannot secure a speedy trial, the seriousness of the alleged crime alone should not defeat a plea for bail.

The Court also considered the petitioner’s period of incarceration, the stage of trial, the absence of criminal antecedents and the grant of bail to the co-accused.

The Court accepted that the injured eyewitness had supported the prosecution, but noted that she had already been examined, reducing the stated concern about interference with that material witness.

The petitioner had no other criminal antecedents and had remained in custody for nearly four years and six months.

With only five of 43 witnesses examined, the Court considered completion of the trial in the near future highly unlikely.

Taking account of the co-accused’s bail and the Article 21 principle concerning speedy trial, the Court found continued detention unwarranted at that stage.