Prolonged incarceration does not entitle bail in heinous offenses when the trial is near completion.

The applicant sought regular bail in a case involving the kidnapping for ransom and subsequent murder of Rahul Saxena (the deceased) in November 2017

The prosecution alleged that the deceased was brought to the applicant's rented flat and strangled after ransom calls were made to the victim's family

The applicant was arrested on November 14, 2017, following a tip-off and evidence including the recovery of the victim's mobile phone pieces and ATM card at his instance

The applicant argued for bail on the grounds of prolonged incarceration (over eight years) and the violation of his right to a speedy trial under Article 21

Conversely, the State opposed the application, citing the gravity of the offence, the applicant’s unsatisfactory jail conduct, and his involvement in three other FIRs

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the BNSS and Section 439 of the CrPC regarding the discretionary power to grant bail

It relied on Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to a speedy trial

It applied the principle from State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, holding that incarceration period alone is insufficient for bail in serious offences

Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh, emphasizing the balance between individual liberty and societal interest

Crucially, it followed Gulfisha Fatima v. State (NCT of Delhi), which established that the inquiry into delay must be "contextual" and not a "mechanical override based on time alone"

The court reasoned that while Article 21 is a "dominant role" in bail considerations, it is not absolute and must be balanced against the nature and gravity of the offence

In this case, the court found the allegations were "very serious," involving a "pre-mediated abduction" and "cold-blooded murder" in a flat rented by the applicant

The court analyzed the applicant's profile, noting he was not a first-time offender and had an "Unsatisfactory" conduct record in jail, including five punishment tickets

Applying the Gulfisha Fatima framework, the court determined that the delay was not "unconscionable" because the trial had made "meaningful progress" and was at its "fag end" with only four witnesses remaining

Consequently, the court found that the societal interest in justice for a heinous crime outweighed the applicant’s claim for liberty based solely on the passage of time

It held that long incarceration is not a "solitary determinant" for bail in grave offences where the trial is nearing conclusion

To protect the applicant's right to a speedy trial without releasing him, the court directed the Trial Court to expedite proceedings and conclude the trial within six months through day-to-day hearings