Prolonged pre-trial detention warrants bail once the injured complainant's court testimony is fully recorded.

The applicant was arrested on August 30, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 80/2025 for allegedly firing upon a petrol pump owner (Tejnarayan) after being refused fuel for not wearing a helmet.

The complainant alleged that the applicant and an accomplice returned to the petrol pump armed with firearms and fired shots, causing injuries to the complainant’s wrist and abdomen.

This is the applicant's third bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS; the second application was withdrawn with liberty to revive the prayer after the complainant’s court statement was recorded.

The complainant's statement has since been recorded.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS following the recording of the complainant's testimony and considering the duration of pre-trial detention.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

The substantive charges were registered under Sections 109(1) (Attempt to murder), 296 (Obscene acts), 3(5) (Joint liability), and 324(4) (Mischief) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, along with Sections 25, 27, 30, and 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act.

The Court further relied on the legal principle that prolonged pre-trial detention is an "anathema to the concept of liberty".

The Court examined the progress of the trial, noting that the condition set in the previous dismissal—recording the complete statement of the injured complainant—had been fulfilled.

While the State argued that the complainant had fully supported the prosecution's case in his deposition, the Court balanced this against the applicant's period of custody since August 2025 and the likelihood that the trial would not conclude in the near future.

The Court reasoned that since the primary witness had already been examined, the risk of tampering with that specific evidence was mitigated.

Applying the principle of personal liberty, the Court determined that continued detention was unnecessary.

The Court ordered the applicant's release on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one solvent surety, subject to conditions including cooperation with the trial, non-interference with witnesses, and a prohibition on committing further offences.