Regular bail granted where material witnesses are examined and cross-case exists involving a free fight.

The applicant filed a third application for regular bail regarding Crime No. 653/2024, involving offences under Sections 109 (Punishment of abetment), 296 (Obscene acts and songs), 191(2) (Rioting), 191(3) (Rioting armed with deadly weapon), 190 (Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence), and 103(1) (Murder) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, along with Section 25 of the Arms Act.

The incident occurred on December 4, 2024, stemming from a dispute over the elopement of two individuals, which escalated into a physical scuffle in an agricultural field.

A cross-case (Crime No. 654/2024) was registered against the complainant party for injuries sustained by the applicant’s side.

The applicant was accused of attempting to run over the complainant party with a tractor and assaulting one Aasif with a wooden stick, while other co-accused allegedly inflicted fatal injuries on the deceased, Shahjad.

The applicant has been in judicial custody since December 10, 2024, and six out of fifty-seven prosecution witnesses have been examined.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in light of the progress of the trial and the nature of the allegations.

2. Whether the plea of "free fight" and the examination of material prosecution witnesses mitigate the necessity for continued incarceration.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which grants the High Court power to release an accused on bail.

It considered the legal nuances of "free fight" and "over-implication" in multi-accused scenarios.

The court also evaluated the right to bail where the trial is likely to be prolonged and the material witnesses have already been examined, ensuring the applicant is not subjected to punitive pre-trial detention.

The court noted that the material prosecution witnesses, including the injured parties, have already been examined, thereby minimizing the risk of the applicant tampering with evidence or influencing key witnesses.

It observed that the allegations against the applicant were general in nature—specifically involving a wooden stick and a tractor—whereas the fatal injuries to the deceased were attributed to other co-accused using sharp-edged weapons (Dhariya).

The court recognized the substance in the applicant's argument regarding a "free fight" due to the registered cross-case where the accused party also sustained significant injuries.

Furthermore, the court found that the applicant’s sole criminal antecedent resulted in an acquittal, and as a middle-aged agriculturist, he posed no significant flight risk.

Given that only six of fifty-seven witnesses have testified, the court determined that the trial would not conclude soon and continued incarceration was unwarranted.

The court held that since the material witnesses had been examined and the applicant did not directly cause the deceased's death, he was entitled to release.

The applicant was ordered to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of the same amount, subject to conditions including regular attendance at trial, no further involvement in similar offences, and no tampering with remaining evidence.