Prolonged incarceration and examination of material witnesses warrant grant of bail despite criminal antecedents.

The appellant, a 19-year-old labourer, was arrested on August 17, 2024, in connection with Crime No. 939/2024

It is alleged that the appellant and co-accused Kuldeep assaulted the victim, Rahul Ahirwar, with a sharp-edged knife, causing injuries to his neck and shoulder

Medical reports indicated that while the injuries were potentially life-threatening if untreated, no vital organs or major vessels were affected

This is the appellant's third criminal appeal under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act; two previous appeals were dismissed in January and May 2025

The appellant challenged the order dated December 9, 2025, passed by the Special Judge (under SC & ST Act), Sagar, which rejected his bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

1. Whether the appellant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS and Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act, given the 19-month period of incarceration and the current stage of the trial

2. Whether the appellant’s criminal antecedents and the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim warrant continued judicial custody

The Court primarily applied Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which provides the framework for appeals against bail rejections

It also considered Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the High Court's discretionary power to grant bail

The court relied on the principle of parity, noting that a co-accused had already been granted bail

Furthermore, it emphasized that bail should not be withheld as a form of pre-trial punishment, especially when material witnesses have been examined and there is no evidence of the accused being a flight risk or having a history of major convictions

The Court observed that the material prosecution witnesses—the injured victim, the complainant, and the victim's mother—had already been examined

This reduced the likelihood of the appellant tampering with evidence or influencing key witnesses

Regarding the medical evidence, the Court noted that despite the exposure of strap muscle and trachea, no vital organs such as the carotid artery or thyroid gland were damaged, suggesting the injuries did not result in permanent vital impairment

The Court addressed the prosecution's concern regarding the appellant’s 11 criminal antecedents by noting that many involved minor excise offences and that the appellant had no major convictions

Given the appellant's young age, his status as a labourer, the 19-month duration of his custody, and the delay in trial progress despite coercive measures against witnesses, the Court found no compelling reason for continued incarceration

It directed that the appellant, Ayush Jain, be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 75,000/- with one solvent surety

The holding was subject to stringent conditions, including the requirement that the appellant mark his presence at the Motinagar Police Station every Saturday until the conclusion of the trial and refrain from further criminal activity

Breach of any condition would render the bail ineffective