Significant Delay in Naming Accused and Lack of Initial Corroboration Warrants Grant of Regular Bail

The accused/applicant sought regular bail regarding FIR No. 407/2021 (PS Govind Puri) under Section 302/34 IPC

On June 25, 2021, Hari Kishan (the deceased) was stabbed and subsequently declared brought dead at the hospital

Initial statements by the niece (Rakhi) and the widow (Ms. Sanju) did not name the applicant; Rakhi noted the deceased failed to name his assailants before collapsing

Investigation originally proceeded against co-accused Ashu and Babu Lal based on prior enmity

However, 135 days later, on November 9, 2021, the widow gave a statement under Section 164 CrPC claiming the deceased named the applicant ("Lakhan") as one of the attackers

The applicant has been in custody since September 30, 2022, and the trial is nearing conclusion

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the delay in naming him in the witness statements and the lack of eyewitness testimony

2. Whether the applicant's criminal antecedents and the widow’s apprehension of harm justify the continued denial of liberty

The court considered the provisions for regular bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (or the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) in the context of an offense under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code

The court applied the principle that prolonged incarceration without reliable or consistent incriminating evidence—specifically where a witness improves upon their initial statement after a significant delay (135 days)—warrants the grant of bail

Furthermore, it recognized that while criminal antecedents are a factor, they do not serve as an absolute bar to bail if the accused is already on bail in those matters and the current evidence is weak

The Court observed a significant lack of primary evidence linking the applicant to the crime. It noted there were no eyewitnesses to the stabbing

Crucially, the Court highlighted that neither the niece (the first person to see the deceased) nor the widow named the applicant in their initial Section 161 CrPC statements or the hospital MLC

The applicant was only implicated through the widow’s statement recorded 135 days post-incident, which the Court viewed as a "vital circumstance" questioning the reliability of the accusation

Regarding the State's objection to the applicant’s antecedents, the Court found it insufficient for detention since he was already on bail in those two cases

The Court balanced the widow's safety concerns by recording the counsel's assurance that the applicant would not contact the deceased’s family

Given that the trial is nearly over (only the IO remains) and the applicant has been jailed for nearly four years, further deprivation of liberty was deemed unnecessary

The Court ordered the applicant's release on a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the condition that he does not contact the victim's family