Prolonged pretrial custody and stalled trial progress support regular bail despite serious allegations.

The petitioner sought regular bail under Sections 483 and 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with an FIR alleging offences under Sections 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and another person held the complainant while co-accused Salman stabbed him; the knife was recovered at Salman’s instance, not the petitioner’s.

The petitioner had been in custody since 4 June 2025. Investigation was complete, charges had been framed on 9 April 2026, and the matter was listed for prosecution evidence; the complainant had not yet been examined.

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail having regard to his alleged role, the completed investigation, and the stage and likely duration of the trial.

2. Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal cases, which had not resulted in conviction, justified denying bail despite the other circumstances.

The Court considered the bail jurisdiction under Sections 483 and 528 of the BNSS.

It applied the principles that pre-trial detention should not become punishment, that an accused is presumed innocent before conviction, and that prolonged incarceration and lack of timely trial progress may engage the right to a speedy trial under Article 21.

Relying on Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P., (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Court noted that the seriousness of the offence and pending criminal cases, without more, do not necessarily justify refusing bail.

It also relied on Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038, Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, and the other authorities cited in its discussion for the principle that undue delay and prolonged custody may warrant release on bail, irrespective of the nature of the offence.

The Court found that the petitioner had spent approximately 16 months in custody, the investigation and charge-sheet were complete, and the trial had not substantially progressed after charges were framed.

It also distinguished the petitioner’s alleged role of holding the complainant from the knife assault attributed to Salman, at whose instance the weapon was recovered.

Given the material witness’s non-appearance and the prospect that the trial would take time, the Court concluded that further custody served no investigative purpose and that the petitioner’s unconvicted prior cases did not outweigh the circumstances favouring bail.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.