Prolonged incarceration warrants bail where circumstantial evidence is inconclusive and trial remains pending.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 19/2023 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Chhatarpur, for offences under Sections 302, 397, 201 and 34 of the IPC, as recorded in the order. The deceased, Ramkishore Rathore, went missing on 11 January 2023 along with his brother. A partially burnt unidentified body was discovered on 13 January 2023 and was subsequently identified as that of the deceased on the basis of his clothes and old injury marks. The FIR was registered against unknown persons on 14 January 2023. The applicant was arrested on 2 April 2023, and the charge-sheet was filed on 30 June 2023.

The prosecution relied principally on the alleged recovery of pieces of a gold chain from the applicant and CCTV footage suggesting that the applicant was last seen with the deceased. The applicant contended that the recovery witness, P.W. 5, admitted that the seizure was not effected in his presence; the recovery occurred nearly three months after the incident; the missing-person report did not mention any gold chain or valuables; and the CCTV evidence was separated from the probable time of death by a substantial interval.

The applicant’s earlier bail application before the Trial Court was dismissed on 24 July 2023, and his first application before the High Court was dismissed on 18 August 2023. At the time of the present application, he had remained in custody since 2 April 2023, had undergone more than three years and three months of incarceration, and 26 of the 36 prosecution witnesses had been examined.

Whether, in the circumstances of the alleged recovery and the “last seen together” evidence, the applicant’s continued pre-trial incarceration was justified.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail in view of his prolonged custody, the incomplete trial, absence of criminal antecedents, and the uncertainty regarding the trial’s early conclusion.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail, along with the bail conditions under Section 480(3) of the BNSS.

The Court considered the constitutional protection of speedy trial under Article 21, under which prolonged detention of an undertrial should not become punishment before conviction.

It relied on the principle stated in Didar Singh alias Dari v. State of Haryana, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1361, that “last seen together” is ordinarily a weak circumstance unless the time gap between the accused and deceased being last seen together and the discovery or probable time of death is so narrow as to exclude third-party intervention; Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not relieve the prosecution of its primary burden of proof.

The Court also noted the applicant’s reliance on Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 15 SCC 521.

The Court found that the alleged gold-chain recovery did not presently possess unimpeachable evidentiary value. It was made nearly three months after the alleged occurrence, without a satisfactory explanation for the delay, and P.W. 5 had stated in cross-examination that the seizure was not conducted in his presence.

Similarly, the CCTV footage relied upon for the “last seen” circumstance was not proximate to the probable time of death as disclosed by the medical evidence. The intervening time gap left open the possibility of third-party intervention.

These issues were matters for appreciation at trial and, at the bail stage, weakened the justification for indefinite pre-trial detention.

The Court further gave weight to the applicant’s continuous custody since 2 April 2023, the fact that only 26 of 36 prosecution witnesses had been examined, the absence of criminal antecedents, and the lack of any allegation that he had misused liberty, influenced witnesses, or tampered with evidence.

Balancing the seriousness of the allegations against the applicant’s right to personal liberty and speedy trial, the Court held that the prolonged incarceration and uncertain conclusion of the trial warranted release on bail.

The applicant was directed to be released on furnishing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

He was required to remain present on every date fixed during trial, comply with the conditions under Section 480(3) of the BNSS, and observe all other bail conditions.

The order was to remain effective until conclusion of the trial, subject to becoming ineffective in the event of bail jump or breach of conditions.