Prolonged incarceration, delayed trial, hostile witnesses, and parity with co-accused justify grant of bail.

The applicant, Akash Yadav, sought bail in connection with FIR No. 0302 of 2025 registered at Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, for offences under Sections 109, 115(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution case arose from an FIR lodged by Amar Singh against Suraj, Akash and an unknown person.

The applicant had been in custody since 16 July 2025, had no criminal antecedents, and contended that the alleged firearm injuries were simple and not life-threatening.

The charge-sheet had been filed, but only two of the seventeen prosecution witnesses had been examined; both had been declared hostile on 30 July 2026.

The applicant also relied on the grant of bail to co-accused Aditya Saini, allegedly having an identical role, by the High Court on 17 July 2026.

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail in view of his prolonged custody, the limited progress of the trial, and the hostile testimony of the two witnesses examined?

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Aditya Saini, who had already been granted bail?

Whether bail should be granted subject to conditions securing the applicant’s attendance and cooperation with the trial?

The Court considered the alleged offences under Sections 109, 115(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.

It applied the established principles governing bail, including consideration of the duration of custody, the progress of the trial, the likelihood of continued detention, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, and the possibility of parity with similarly placed co-accused.

The Court also exercised its discretion under the general law of bail without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

The Court found that the applicant had remained in custody since 16 July 2025, while the trial had made limited progress, with only two of seventeen prosecution witnesses examined.

Both examined witnesses had been declared hostile, a circumstance acknowledged by the State and relevant to the assessment of the prosecution case at the bail stage.

The Court further noted that the applicant had no criminal antecedents and that a co-accused with an identical role had already been granted bail, supporting the applicant’s claim of parity.

Considering these cumulative circumstances, the Court concluded that continued detention was not justified, while leaving the merits of the case open.

The applicant, Akash Yadav, was directed to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

He was required to appear before the trial court on every date, avoid unnecessary adjournments, and not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

The prosecution was given liberty to seek cancellation of bail in the event of breach of these conditions.