Prolonged pretrial custody and a trial unlikely to conclude soon warranted conditional bail.

The applications under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) arose from FIR No. 53/2023 concerning the fatal stabbing of Akash near Khan Market on 16 April 2023.

The prosecution alleged that both applicants participated in a planned group attack and relied on, among other things, CCTV footage, call-detail records, recoveries, and evidence of prior hostility

The applicants’ earlier bail applications had been dismissed by the Sessions Court, most recently on 13 July 2026

By the time of the High Court’s decision, both had spent more than three years in custody; charges had been framed in April 2024, and only a small fraction of the 58 prosecution witnesses had been examined

1. Whether, having regard to the prosecution evidence and the applicants’ alleged roles, there was sufficient basis to continue their pre-trial detention

2. Whether the applicants’ period of custody, the progress of the trial, and the risks of witness interference justified release on bail subject to conditions

The Court considered its power to grant regular bail under Section 483 BNSS and the prosecution’s charges under Sections 302, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959

In assessing bail, it considered the seriousness of the allegations, the prima facie material, the applicants’ individual circumstances and antecedents, their conduct, time spent in custody, trial progress, and the risk of interference with witnesses, without determining the credibility of evidence or guilt

It recognised that liability under Sections 34 and 120-B IPC may arise from common intention or conspiracy even where an accused did not personally inflict the fatal injury

The Court also referred to State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, 2025 INSC 979, for the caution that material circumstances concerning participation and risks to a fair trial must not be overlooked in bail decisions involving serious offences

The alleged dying declaration did not individually name either applicant, and the independent witnesses examined had not identified either as inflicting an injury; the Court nevertheless treated the CCTV footage, call-detail records, alleged recoveries, and evidence of prior hostility as material supporting the prosecution’s case, while leaving their weight and the applicants’ roles for trial

Against that evidence, the Court weighed the applicants’ more than three years in custody, the limited progress of a trial involving 58 witnesses, their lack of reported criminal antecedents and established Delhi residences, and Ankit Kumar’s compliance with earlier interim bail

Although it took the asserted risk of witness intimidation seriously, no specific instance of attempted interference had been brought to its attention, and it considered that risk manageable through conditions

It therefore concluded that continued detention was not necessary to secure the proceedings, without finding the prosecution case weak or resolving the questions of common intention or conspiracy

Conditions included attendance at each hearing, non-interference with witnesses, monthly appearance before the Investigating Officer, notification of residence and contact details, and no departure from India without the Trial Court’s permission

The State may seek cancellation of bail for breach of conditions; the observations are tentative and do not bind the Trial Court on the merits