Second bail granted due to prosecution witnesses' persistent non-appearance and delay in trial proceedings.

The three applicants filed a second bail application following the rejection of their first application on merits on 06.08.2025.

The prosecution alleged that on February 22, 2025, the applicants and other co-accused chased the complainant (Lalita Yadav) and her husband on a motorcycle, assaulted them with sticks, and threw their five-month-old child to the ground, causing injuries.

The applicants were charged under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 296, 351(2), 115, and 109 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The applicants sought bail on new grounds, citing the repeated non-appearance of the complainant/injured witness for cross-examination despite the issuance of bailable warrants.

1. Whether the continued custodial detention of the applicants is warranted given the change in circumstances regarding the progress of the trial and the conduct of the prosecution witnesses.

2. Whether the non-appearance of the material witnesses despite judicial summons constitutes a sufficient "new ground" to maintain a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The Court primarily exercised its jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC) regarding the grant of regular bail.

It considered the principles of "liberty of bail" versus "abuse of process," noting that while the nature of the offense is serious, the right to a speedy trial and the conduct of witnesses are material factors.

The Court also referenced procedural compliance under Sections 269 (non-attendance) and 209 (failure to appear) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The Court balanced the gravity of the allegations—a "well-orchestrated" night attack involving an infant—against the procedural delays in the trial.

While the State argued that the previous rejection on merits should bar the current application, the Court found merit in the "new grounds" presented: specifically, that the complainant and her husband remained absent for cross-examination despite the trial court issuing bailable warrants.

The Court noted that the charge sheet had been filed and the applicants had already undergone a period of detention.

By linking the delay caused by the prosecution witnesses to the applicants' right to a timely conclusion of proceedings, the Court determined that further detention was not warranted at this investigative stage, provided strict conditions were imposed to prevent the abuse of liberty.

The holding was contingent upon several conditions, including that the applicants must not seek adjournments when witnesses are present and must appear personally for framing charges and making statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The Court further directed the trial court to endeavor to conclude the trial within six months.