Prolonged pretrial detention and trial delay can justify bail despite the gravity of murder charges.

The applicants sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in FIR No. 621/2021, registered at PS Sangam Vihar.

The prosecution alleged that, on the night of 19–20 December 2021, the applicants and others robbed and assaulted Pankaj and Jatin, who were returning from a birthday party; Jatin later died.

Charges including Sections 302 and 396 read with Section 34 IPC had been framed against the applicants.

By the date of the order, Ramzan Ali had been in custody for 4 years and 8 months, Vikas for 3 years and 11 months, and Amit @ Golu for 3 years and 5 months.

The injured eyewitness, Pankaj, had died before trial began; all public witnesses had been examined, and the trial was proceeding with official witnesses.

Three co-accused had been granted bail.

The State opposed bail, citing the gravity of the offence, the risk of influencing witnesses, and the fact that Vikas and Amit @ Golu had been declared proclaimed offenders.

1. Whether the applicants should be granted regular bail, having regard to the seriousness of the alleged offences, the evidence and risks identified by the State, and the applicants’ periods of pre-trial custody.

2. Whether the progress of the trial, the examination of public witnesses, the death of the injured eyewitness, and the bail granted to co-accused supported release on bail.

Section 483 BNSS empowers the High Court to grant regular bail.

In exercising that discretion, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the accusation, the supporting evidence, the risk of absconding or tampering with witnesses, and other relevant circumstances, including the principles discussed in State of Maharashtra v. Sitaram Popat Vetal, (2004) 7 SCC 521, and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1978) 1 SCC 118.

The Court also applied the principle that bail, rather than jail, is the general rule, while recognising that gravity alone is not determinative (State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308; Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P., (2020) 11 SCC 648).

Pre-trial detention is not to be punitive, and an accused should not be kept in custody indefinitely while awaiting trial (Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40); prolonged custody and likely delay in completing trial may support bail (Zahur Haider Zaidi v. CBI, (2019) 20 SCC 404).

The Court weighed the grave nature of the charges against the applicants’ lengthy custody and the uncertain time required to conclude the trial.

The injured eyewitness had died before trial, and all public witnesses had been examined, substantially reducing the risk of interference with material witnesses.

The Court also noted that the prosecution’s identification case principally relied on PW-10’s identification from CCTV footage provided months after the incident, and referred to an apparent inconsistency in witness accounts without deciding its effect on the merits.

The release of co-accused was an additional relevant circumstance.

Although the State raised concerns about witness intimidation and noted that Vikas and Amit had been declared proclaimed offenders, the Court found that the applicants could be released subject to stringent conditions; the seriousness of the offence, by itself, did not justify continued pre-trial detention.

These included restrictions on travel, obligations to provide and update residence and contact details, reporting to the investigating officer when called and to the concerned SHO on the first Monday of each month, non-contact with the complainant, victim, witnesses and their families, non-interference with evidence, attendance at every trial hearing, and abstention from criminal activity.

The State may seek cancellation if a condition is breached; the Trial Court was requested to expedite the trial, and the Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail applications.