Prolonged pre-trial detention and undue trial delay warrant bail notwithstanding the offence’s gravity.

The applicant sought regular bail under Sections 483 and 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case registered under Sections 302/34/120B IPC.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and co-accused conspired to murder Anwarul Haque, who was stabbed to death on 31 July 2022.

The prosecution relied on witness identification from CCTV footage and call-detail records; the applicant disputed the strength of that evidence and submitted that no recovery had been made at his instance.

This was his second application before the High Court; an earlier application had been withdrawn with liberty to seek bail after examination of material witnesses.

By the present application, the applicant had been in custody since 16 December 2022, and the remaining witnesses were stated to be official witnesses.

1. Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail in light of the period of pre-trial detention, the status of the evidence, and the anticipated duration of the trial.

2. Whether the gravity of the alleged offence and the prosecution’s reliance on CCTV identification and call-detail records justified continued detention despite the delay in trial.

Sections 483 and 528 BNSS provide the procedural basis invoked for the regular-bail application and the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

Article 21 of the Constitution protects an accused’s right to a speedy trial; where trial delay is not attributable to the accused and no timely conclusion is in prospect, prolonged pre-trial incarceration may support release on bail.

Relying on Arvind Dham v. Enforcement Directorate, (2026) 7 SCC 330, and the authorities discussed therein, including Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 9 SCC 813, and Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 12 SCC 660, the Court reiterated that the seriousness of the alleged offence cannot, by itself, justify refusing bail where the accused’s speedy-trial right is impaired.

The Court considered that the applicant had been incarcerated for approximately three years and nine months, the public and material witnesses had been examined, and the remaining witnesses were official witnesses, reducing the stated concern about witness influence.

The CCTV identification and call-detail records were matters for assessment at trial, while no recovery had been made at the applicant’s instance.

The trial remained pending despite the earlier request to expedite the material witnesses’ evidence, and no delay was shown to be attributable to the applicant.

Weighing these circumstances against the gravity of the charge, the Court found that continued detention was not warranted.

The Court clarified that its observations did not express an opinion on the merits and disposed of the petition.