Prolonged pre-trial custody is unjustified where material evidence is secured and the complainant does not oppose bail.

The applicants, who are brothers, sought regular bail under Sections 483 read with 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in FIR No. 0617/2022, registered under Sections 324/307/34 IPC.

The prosecution alleged that on 7 June 2022 they and others assaulted Roshan and Neeraj with a cutter blade near Ambedkar Dharamshala, Naya Gaon Usmanpur.

The injured persons had deposed at trial, although Neeraj’s cross-examination remained pending.

The complainant’s counsel confirmed a compromise and did not oppose either bail application.

The applicants’ earlier bail applications had been dismissed by the trial court on 20 May 2026.

At the time of the High Court’s decision, the applicants had been in custody since 16 May 2023 and 8 June 2022, respectively.

1. Whether the applicants should be granted regular bail, having regard to the compromise, the stage of the trial, the evidence already secured, and the period of custody.

2. Whether continued detention in the circumstances would be unjustified and punitive.

Under Section 483 read with Section 528 BNSS, the Court considered the applications for regular bail.

Relevant bail considerations include the nature of the accusation, the likelihood of the accused absconding, the stage of trial, and the reasonable apprehension of witnesses being influenced.

Relying on Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 9 SCC 813, and its quotation from Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240, the Court reiterated that bail is not to be withheld as punishment; custody pending trial is principally to secure the accused’s attendance.

The Court also referred to the coordinate Bench decision in Sumit Mann v. State (Govt. of NCT, Delhi) and Anr., BAIL APPLN. 2432/2026, dated 17 August 2026, in which bail had been granted in a case involving an inter se settlement.

The complainant’s confirmed compromise and non-opposition supported the applications, while the Court separately noted that the material evidence had largely been secured and that the remaining evidence did not require the applicants’ continued custody.

In light of those circumstances and the substantial periods already spent in custody, the Court held that further incarceration would be punitive and unjustified, applying the principle that bail is not a punishment.

The State may seek cancellation of bail for breach of any condition; the applications were disposed of, with observations expressly confined to the bail decision.