Prolonged incarceration and trial delay warrant bail despite criminal antecedents and gravity of robbery charges.

The applicant, Makhan, was arrested on July 22, 2022, in connection with Crime No. 452/2022 for allegedly intercepting a motorcycle and robbing a couple of jewelry, cash, and a mobile phone

The applicant was charged under Sections 392, 413, and 201/34 of the IPC

This is the applicant’s third bail application; the first was withdrawn to allow for the examination of the complainant, and the second was withdrawn with a direction for an expedited trial

The applicant sought bail citing prolonged incarceration (3 years and 9 months), the vacancy of the presiding officer's post which delayed the trial, and the fact that a co-accused had already been granted bail

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the prolonged period of pre-trial detention and the delay in trial proceedings

2. Whether the applicant poses a risk of recidivism or tampering with evidence if released

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the High Court's power to grant bail

It adhered to the principle that "bail is the rule, jail is an exception," particularly when a trial is inordinately delayed and there is no substantial criminal history

The court also invoked Section 480(3) of the BNSS, 2023, to impose statutory and stringent conditions on the release of an accused with criminal antecedents

The court observed that the applicant has been in custody since July 2022 and that the trial has become inordinately delayed, partly due to the trial court remaining vacant for a period

While the State opposed bail based on the gravity of the offense involving robbery, the court noted that the veracity of the allegations would only be determined through evidence at trial

The Court reasoned that since the applicant has a dependent family and lacks a substantial criminal past or previous major convictions, there is no compelling reason for continued incarceration

Furthermore, the court found no likelihood of the applicant fleeing from justice or tampering with witnesses, especially as many remaining witnesses are police personnel

Parity was also considered as the co-accused had been granted bail

The Court held that prolonged incarceration without a concluding trial warranted relief, provided stringent conditions were met. These conditions include marking presence at the police station on the first Saturday of every month and prohibiting any criminal activity or interference with trial proceedings

The order remains effective until the end of the trial unless bail conditions are breached