Prolonged incarceration justified bail despite specific allegations in a murder prosecution.

The applicant sought bail in connection with FIR No. 0607 of 2023, registered at Police Station Kotwali Haridwar, in which he and two co-accused were charge-sheeted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act.

The applicant had been in custody since 12 September 2023, had no criminal antecedents, and relied on the length of his incarceration, the time remaining for trial, and the fact that both co-accused had been granted bail.

The State opposed bail, emphasizing the applicant’s alleged specific role in firing at the deceased and the eyewitness accounts.

The judgment records differing submissions about the number of witnesses examined: the applicant’s counsel said 12 of 21 had been examined, while the State referred to 9 having been examined.

Whether the applicant should be released on bail in view of his prolonged incarceration and lack of criminal antecedents, despite the alleged specific role attributed to him.

Whether the grant of bail to the co-accused supported the applicant’s claim for bail on parity.

The charges against the applicant arose under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act.

It treated prolonged incarceration, the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents, and the co-accused’s release on bail as relevant circumstances in deciding the application.

The Court acknowledged the State’s contention that the applicant had a distinct role, including allegedly firing at the deceased, and that eyewitnesses attributed a specific role to him.

Nevertheless, it concluded that the applicant’s custody since 12 September 2023, his lack of criminal antecedents, and the fact that the two co-accused had already been granted bail justified release on bail.

The Court allowed the application on the ground of long incarceration without expressing an opinion on the merits.

The Court directed that the applicant be released on a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions requiring attendance at each trial hearing, surrender of any passport, remaining within the Trial Court’s territorial jurisdiction without permission, and avoiding contact with the co-accused or tampering with evidence.

The Court stated that the Trial Court should proceed on the merits without being influenced by its observations.