Prolonged incarceration and unlikely trial completion warrant bail irrespective of the offence’s seriousness.

The petitioner was charged under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly murdering his elder brother, Wasim Khan, with iron pipes in their shop on 21 April 2023.

The prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence and included an allegation that the petitioner later confessed to the crime to four witnesses.

Arrested on 22 April 2023, the petitioner remained in judicial custody after the charge sheet was filed. His bail application before the Sessions Court was rejected on 20 August 2025.

At the time of this petition, only four of the 46 charge-sheet witnesses had been examined, and the petitioner had been in custody for nearly three years and six months.

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, while facing charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.

2. Whether the petitioner’s prolonged pre-trial custody and the slow progress of the trial justified bail notwithstanding the seriousness of the alleged offences.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, empowers the High Court to consider a prayer for regular bail.

The alleged offences were punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.

The Court relied on Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2024) 9 SCC 813, para 17, for the principle that where the State or the court cannot ensure an accused’s speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, the seriousness of the offence alone should not defeat a plea for bail.

The Court noted that the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, that the petitioner had no other criminal antecedents, and that only four of 46 charge-sheet witnesses had been examined.

Given the resulting prospect of a substantial further delay, the petitioner’s custody of nearly three years and six months, and the Article 21 principle stated in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh, the Court concluded that bail was warranted.

It did so without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

These included executing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum; regularly attending trial unless exempted; not threatening or tampering with prosecution witnesses; not engaging in similar offences; and not leaving the trial court’s jurisdiction without permission until disposal of the case.