Trial delay does not warrant bail where eyewitnesses directly implicate accused in murder and assault.

The appellants challenged, under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the order dated 6 September 2024 by which the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, rejected their bail applications in Special G.R. Case No. 12 of 2023 arising out of Town P.S. Case No. 124 of 2023.

They were charged under Sections 147, 148, 323, 326, 302, 307, 153-A, 506 and 149 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The prosecution alleged that the appellants, along with co-accused persons armed with deadly weapons, participated in a riot, murdered Chandramani Mirdha and injured Kalia @ Biswanath Sikka in furtherance of their common object.

The appellants sought bail principally on the ground of delay in commencement of trial.

The prosecution relied on direct allegations and eyewitness accounts identifying both appellants as assailants.

The Court also noted that Md. Sonu had ten criminal antecedents, which had not been disclosed in his appeal.

1. Whether the appellants should be enlarged on bail under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on the ground of delay in commencement of trial.

2. Whether the existence of direct eyewitness allegations, the gravity of the offences, pending examination of eyewitnesses, and, in the case of Md. Sonu, undisclosed criminal antecedents justified refusal of bail.

The Court applied Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which provides for an appeal against an order granting or refusing bail in proceedings involving offences under the Act.

The substantive allegations involved Sections 147, 148, 323, 326, 302, 307, 153-A, 506 and 149 of the IPC, concerning rioting, hurt, murder, attempt to murder, promoting enmity, criminal intimidation and liability for acts committed in furtherance of a common object.

The Court further relied on Munnesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1319, for the principle that suppression of material facts concerning involvement in criminal cases disentitles an accused from the discretionary relief of bail.

The Court held that the appellants’ plea based on delay did not outweigh the prosecution material.

There were direct allegations against them of participating in the murder of one person and causing injuries to another, supported by eyewitness accounts that specifically named them as assailants.

Although some co-accused had been granted bail, the Court found that the appellants’ individual implication by eyewitnesses justified a different assessment.

The fact that the eyewitnesses had not yet been examined also weighed against release at that stage.

In relation to Md. Sonu, the Court additionally treated the non-disclosure of ten criminal antecedents as suppression of material facts, applying the principle in Munnesh.

Considering the gravity of the allegations, the pending examination of eyewitnesses and the relevant antecedents, the Court concluded that bail was not appropriate.

It directed the trial court to proceed with the trial, if there was no other legal impediment, having regard to the period of custody.

The Public Prosecutor was requested to ensure that the Forensic Laboratory submitted the chemical examination report and material objects at the earliest, and the trial court was directed to verify whether those materials had already been submitted by the court that forwarded the exhibits to the FSL.