Prolonged pre-trial detention warrants bail when trial will not conclude soon, subject to stringent conditions.

The applicant, Smt. Shipra Das, filed the bail application on behalf of six accused persons under Section 483(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with P.R. Bari P.S. Case No. 30 of 2024, corresponding to S.T. (Type-I) No. 35 of 2024, registered under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that the deceased was found injured in the Chottakhola Maitri Park area on 12 July 2024 and later died during treatment at G.B.P. Hospital.

A suo motu complaint was lodged on 13 July 2024, followed by a written complaint from the deceased’s daughter alleging assault by the accused persons.

After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and charges were framed on 9 January 2025.

The accused had previously been granted bail by the Sessions Court on 25 July 2025, but that order was set aside by the High Court on 26 September 2025, with directions to surrender.

They surrendered on 27 October 2025 and remained in custody.

A subsequent bail application was dismissed on 24 June 2026.

In the present application, the accused relied on approximately 700 days of pre-trial incarceration and the projected delay in conclusion of the trial.

The prosecution and the complainant opposed bail, alleging that the accused had threatened the complainant after their earlier release and contending that the trial was close to completion.

At the time of consideration, 31 witnesses had been examined and 13 witnesses remained.

Whether the accused persons were entitled to bail in view of their prolonged pre-trial incarceration and the time likely to be required for completion of the trial?

Whether the alleged prior intimidation of the complainant and the accused persons’ earlier conduct justified denial of bail?

Whether the absence of the accused persons’ names from the initial suo motu complaint and FIR was a relevant circumstance at the stage of bail?

The Court applied Section 483(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant bail.

It relied on the foundational principle that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception,” subject to concerns such as flight risk, obstruction of justice, repetition of offences, or intimidation of witnesses, as stated in State of Rajasthan, Jaipur v. Balchand alias Balai, (1977) 4 SCC 308.

The Court further applied the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty and speedy trial under Article 21, relying on Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, which holds that prolonged incarceration coupled with an unlikely timely trial may justify release on bail.

It also relied on Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 512, reaffirming that the principles in K.A. Najeeb are binding and that prolonged detention cannot be disregarded while considering bail.

The complainant’s right to participate in the bail proceedings was recognised with reference to Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra alias Monu, (2022) 9 SCC 321.

The Court found that the accused had undergone prolonged pre-trial detention while the trial remained incomplete, with 13 prosecution witnesses still to be examined; therefore, the trial was likely to take further time.

Applying the principles of personal liberty, speedy trial, and the presumption against punitive pre-trial incarceration under K.A. Najeeb and Balchand, the Court held that continued detention would not serve a proper purpose.

The Court also noted that the accused persons’ names were absent from the initial suo motu complaint and FIR and were introduced at a later stage through the subsequent complaint and investigation.

While expressly leaving the evidentiary value of that circumstance to the trial court, it treated the circumstance, together with prolonged custody and the remaining duration of the trial, as favouring bail.

The prosecution’s concern regarding intimidation and tampering was considered capable of being addressed through stringent conditions rather than continued detention.

The release was made subject to the conditions that the accused surrender their passports, report daily to the concerned police station between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., refrain from intimidating or inducing the complainant or witnesses and from tampering with evidence, and attend and cooperate with the trial without protracting the proceedings.

The application was accordingly disposed of.