Second Bail Granted Following Change in Circumstances and Absence of Specific Overt Act in Witness Testimonies

The Applicant, Sachin Nabiyal, was arrested and placed in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 016 of 2025 under Sections 103(1) (punishment for murder) and 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

His first bail application was rejected on January 6, 2026, primarily based on the allegation that he held the deceased while a co-accused inflicted knife injuries

The Applicant filed this Second Bail Application contending that the charge-sheet attributes the specific act of stabbing and the recovery of the murder weapon solely to co-accused Chandu Khair.

Furthermore, the Applicant emphasized the lack of criminal history, the grant of bail to a co-accused (Ramesh Singh) on parity, and the fact that prosecution witnesses (PW-1 to PW-5) examined during the trial failed to attribute any specific overt act to him

1. Whether the Applicant is entitled to be released on bail despite the prior rejection of his first bail application, given the subsequent developments in the trial and the nature of evidence recorded

2. Whether the slow progress of the trial and the duration of incarceration justify the grant of bail under the principle of personal liberty

The Court primarily applied the provisions governing the grant of bail pending trial under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS/CrPC), considering the gravity of offences under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

It relied on the principle of parity in bail matters

The judicial doctrine that continued incarceration for an indefinite duration during a slow-moving trial violates the rights of the accused when no specific overt act is proved

The Court reasoned that while a second bail application requires a change in circumstances, the progress of the trial provided such grounds.

Although the trial had commenced, only five out of thirty-four witnesses had been examined, suggesting the trial would not conclude in the near future

Upon reviewing the depositions of PW-1 to PW-5, the Court observed a critical gap: no witness specifically attributed any distinct role or overt act to the Applicant, contradicting the initial allegation that he held the deceased during the assault

The Court further noted the absence of criminal antecedents and that no recovery was made from the Applicant

It determined that the exact nature of the Applicant's involvement remained a matter of trial and that indefinite detention without specific evidence of an overt act was unjustified

The Court allowed the Second Bail Application and ordered the Applicant's release upon execution of a personal bond and two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court