Regular bail granted where the prosecution witness attributes no specific role or injury and incarceration is prolonged.

The five petitioners—Ravi @ Jaani, Ishu, Mandeep @ Chander, Shubham and Partham—sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in FIR No. 0135 dated 29 May 2024, registered at Police Station Dadri City, Charkhi Dadri.

The FIR invoked Sections 148, 149, 302, 307, 323 and 506 IPC, with Section 120-B IPC added during investigation, corresponding to provisions of the BNS, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that, at approximately 10:30 p.m. on 28 May 2024, an armed group entered a hotel room where the complainant Rahul and his companions were celebrating a birthday.

The group allegedly assaulted Rahul and Akash, resulting in Akash’s death and serious injuries to Rahul.

The FIR named several accused persons and alleged that they acted in furtherance of a common intention, but did not attribute any particular injury to any specific accused.

During his examination-in-chief as PW-3, complainant Rahul attributed specific acts to certain other accused, including Shubham, but did not attribute any specific role or injury to the five petitioners.

The prosecution declared him hostile and sought permission to cross-examine him.

The petitioners relied on the absence of specific allegations against them, the complainant’s deposition, the grant of bail to similarly situated co-accused, and their prolonged incarceration.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the petitioners had participated in the offence as members of an unlawful assembly.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, notwithstanding the serious offences alleged in the FIR?

Whether the absence of any specific role or injury attributed to the petitioners in the complainant’s deposition, coupled with prolonged incarceration and bail granted to similarly situated co-accused, justified their release on bail?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 439 CrPC, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail during pendency of trial.

The Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations under Sections 148, 149, 302, 307, 323 and 506 IPC, with Section 120-B IPC added during investigation, corresponding to provisions of the BNS, 2023.

The governing bail principles required assessment of the material connecting each accused with the alleged offence, the specific role attributed to the accused, the stage and likely duration of trial, the period of custody, and parity with similarly situated co-accused.

No separate judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The Court found that, although the prosecution case involved serious allegations including murder and attempt to murder, the complainant’s deposition as PW-3 did not attribute any specific overt act or injury to any of the five petitioners.

The Court also noted that the FIR itself did not assign a particular injury to any individual accused.

The petitioners had remained in custody for more than two years and three months, while several co-accused with comparable allegations had already been granted bail by the Sessions Court or the High Court.

Balancing the seriousness of the offences against the absence of substantial material specifically connecting the petitioners to the fatal assault, their prolonged incarceration, and the principle of parity, the Court considered the petitioners entitled to the concession of regular bail.

The petitioners were directed not to threaten or influence prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.

The Court clarified that its observations would not constitute an opinion on the merits of the trial, which was to be decided independently on the evidence.

All five petitions were accordingly disposed of.