Regular bail granted where prolonged custody, non-supporting eyewitnesses, and absent forensic linkage weaken prosecution case.

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 439 of the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, in FIR No. 19 dated 04.03.2024, registered under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC, corresponding to Sections 103 and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Phase-11, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

His earlier bail petition had been dismissed as withdrawn on 30.01.2026.

The FIR arose from the shooting death of Rajesh Dogra outside C.P. Mall, Sector 67, Mohali.

The prosecution alleged that five or six assailants arrived in three vehicles and fired multiple shots at the deceased.

The petitioner had remained in custody since 07.03.2024.

He contended that the alleged eyewitnesses, Rajiv Sharma and Dalinder Singh, had been examined but neither supported the prosecution case nor identified him; that the alleged weapon recovery was not forensically connected with the crime; and that the CCTV footage and evidence of the vehicle owners did not establish his presence or participation.

The State opposed bail on the grounds of the grave and heinous nature of the offence, the petitioner’s alleged specific role, and the advanced stage of the trial.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 439 Cr.P.C., governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

The underlying prosecution concerned alleged offences under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC, corresponding to Sections 103 and 61 BNS, and Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act.

The Court applied the constitutional principle that the right to a speedy trial forms part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, and that pre-trial detention should not become punitive in character.

It further applied the bail-stage principle that the Court should not conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or record a final finding on the merits, while still considering material developments in the evidence relevant to the necessity of continued incarceration.

The Court found that the circumstances had materially changed since the earlier bail proceedings.

Both alleged eyewitnesses had been examined and had neither supported the prosecution in material particulars nor identified the petitioner, thereby reducing the concern that his release could influence their testimony.

The alleged weapon recovered from the petitioner had not been forensically connected with the weapon used in the offence; the CCTV footage did not prima facie establish his presence; and the owners of the vehicles allegedly used by the assailants did not identify him.

Without finally determining the evidentiary merits, the Court held that these circumstances did not disclose an unimpeachable or cogent nexus between the petitioner and the offence.

Considering his custody since 07.03.2024, the present stage of the trial, and the likelihood of further delay, the Court held that continued detention would serve no discernible punitive or useful purpose and could not be allowed to assume the character of punishment.

The bail was made subject to conditions prohibiting inducement, threats, witness contact or tampering; restricting travel outside India without permission; requiring verification of permanent and current addresses; disclosure of PAN, Aadhaar, bank-account and property particulars; intimation of changes in address or mobile number; abstention from similar offences; and regular appearance before the Trial Court unless exempted.

Violation of the conditions could result in cancellation of bail and issuance of coercive process.

Pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of as infructuous.