Prolonged incarceration and material eyewitness contradictions warrant bail, prioritizing the constitutional right to a speedy trial.

The petitioner, an undertrial prisoner, was arrested on March 8, 2017, following an FIR (No. 40/2017) alleging he shot and killed Karamjit Singh outside a Gurudwara in Phinder.

Charges were framed under Sections 302/34 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) and Section 30 of the Indian Arms Act.

The prosecution cited 30 witnesses, of which 18 have been examined, including four purported eyewitnesses (PW1–PW4).

The petitioner sought bail after the Trial Court rejected his application on May 7, 2024, citing the seriousness of the offense and the incomplete examination of witnesses.

By the time of the present petition, the petitioner had remained in continuous incarceration for over nine years.

The Court primarily exercised its jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

It relied heavily on the constitutional mandate of Article 21, which guarantees the right to liberty and a speedy trial.

The Court applied the principle established in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra Anr. (2024), which holds that if the State cannot ensure a speedy trial, it cannot oppose bail solely based on the seriousness of the crime, as Article 21 applies regardless of the nature of the offense.

The Court observed that the petitioner has been detained for over nine years, while 12 out of 30 witnesses remain unexamined, indicating a significant delay in the trial's conclusion.

Upon a "cursory look" at the evidence, the Court identified prima facie contradictions among the eyewitnesses: PW3 claimed PW4 arrived ten minutes after the incident, while PW4 provided a version involving the accused hiding behind a car—a detail absent from his Section 164-A Cr.P.C. statement.

The Court reasoned that while a detailed examination of evidence is avoided at the bail stage, these discrepancies, when coupled with the nine-year incarceration, tilted the balance in favor of the petitioner’s liberty.

It concluded that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 must be protected even in cases involving heinous charges.

It held that long incarceration and trial delay mandate the grant of bail to prevent the violation of constitutional rights.

The petitioner was ordered to be released subject to a surety bond and personal recognizance of Rs. 1.00 lac each, with conditions to appear on every hearing date, refrain from influencing witnesses, and remain within the Trial Court's territorial jurisdiction.

The Court clarified that these observations are limited to the bail application and shall not affect the merits of the trial.