Prolonged incarceration and delayed trial warrant bail notwithstanding the gravity of the alleged offences.

The petitioner, Accused No. 1, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case alleging offences under Sections 302, 307 and 114 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The prosecution alleged that he fatally stabbed Taj Patan and injured an eyewitness who intervened

Earlier bail applications had been dismissed; after the High Court’s direction to examine two eyewitnesses, both were examined as PW-1 and PW-2.

At the time of this application, only two of 38 charge-sheet witnesses had been examined, and the petitioner had been in custody for nearly three years and six months.

Accused No. 2, his grandmother, had been released on bail

Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail in light of his period of pre-trial custody, the progress of the trial and the other circumstances of the case.

Whether the gravity of the alleged offences justified continued detention despite the apparent delay in completing the trial.

Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, empowers the High Court to grant bail.

The Court relied on the Article 21 principle of the right to a speedy trial, citing Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2024) 9 SCC 813: where the State or prosecuting agency cannot ensure a speedy trial, the seriousness of the alleged crime alone should not defeat a bail plea; Article 21 applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.

The Court also considered the circumstances relevant to bail, including the duration of custody, criminal antecedents, trial progress and the status of the co-accused.

The Court noted that both eyewitnesses had been examined, the petitioner had no other criminal antecedents, and he had spent nearly three years and six months in custody.

With only two of 38 charge-sheet witnesses examined, the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future.

Applying the Article 21 principle in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh, the Court held that the gravity of the allegations did not, in these circumstances, warrant continued detention pending a substantially delayed trial.

subject to conditions: execution of a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum; regular attendance before the Trial Court; no threatening or tampering with prosecution witnesses; no involvement in similar offences; and no leaving the Trial Court’s jurisdiction without permission until disposal of the case.