Protracted Trial and Failure of Witnesses to Depose Violate Right to Speedy Trial, Entitling Accused to Bail.

The applicant filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The applicant was arrested on 14.08.2025 following an incident on 09.08.2025 where he allegedly assaulted the complainant's mother, Pista Adiwasi, with a stick during a quarrel over children.

While initially registered under Sections 296 and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the charges were upgraded to Sections 109 and 103 (murder) after the victim succumbed to injuries on 14.08.2025.

The first bail application was dismissed on 22.09.2025 with liberty to renew after witness examination.

The applicant approached the Court again citing a lack of progress in the trial and a six-month delay caused by the non-appearance of prosecution witnesses.

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail due to the violation of his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Whether there is sufficient material to establish prima facie intent to murder (Section 103 BNS) considering the nature of the weapon and the victim's medical history before death.

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the BNSS regarding the power of the High Court to grant bail.

It relied on Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, emphasizing that a speedy trial is a fundamental right.

Additionally, it considered the principles of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), specifically Sections 103 (Punishment for murder), 109 (Attempt to murder), 115(2) (Voluntarily causing hurt), and 296 (Obscene acts and songs).

The Court observed that bail is a manifestation of personal liberty and should not be denied based on uncertain or indefinite factors.

The Court analyzed the procedural delays, noting that the trial had not progressed for over six months because prosecution witnesses failed to appear despite bailable warrants.

It found that the delay was not attributable to the applicant.

On the merits, the Court noted the defense's contention that the incident occurred suddenly during a quarrel, the weapon used was a stick, and the deceased remained conscious for days without giving a dying declaration, which raised questions regarding the prima facie intent to cause death.

Ultimately, the Court determined that the prejudice caused by the delayed trial and the breach of the right to a speedy trial outweighed the grounds for continued incarceration.

The Court held that the applicant's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 had been breached due to the prosecution's failure to produce witnesses.

The release is subject to standard conditions, including cooperation with the trial and a prohibition on committing further offences; failure to comply will result in automatic cancellation of bail.