Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 52

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. SUNDRESH, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.
Kedar Singh – Appellant
VERSUS
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2025 (@ SLP(CRL.) No.14739 of 2024)
Decided On : 03-01-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Abhishek Amritanshu, AOR Mr. Sanchit Guru, Adv. Mr. Rahul Narang, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Amritanshu, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Standing Counsel, Adv. Mr. Ravinder Kumar Yadav, AOR

Prolonged incarceration and hostile witness testimony can justify granting bail to an accused.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 120B, 201, 341, 34 - Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 25 and 27 - The appellant was accused of facilitating the escape of the main accused and aiding him thereafter. The co-accused was granted bail, and most witnesses turned hostile. The appellant has been in custody for over two years. (Paras 2-4)

(B) Bail - The court considered the circumstances of the case, including the prolonged incarceration of the appellant and the status of co-accused, leading to the decision to grant bail. (Paras 5-6)

Findings of Court:
The impugned order is set aside, and bail is granted to the appellant with conditions as determined by the Trial Court.

Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant should be granted bail considering the circumstances of the case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prolonged incarceration and the status of co-accused warranted the granting of bail.

Result: Appeal allowed.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant has been arraigned as an accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B, 201, 341, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

3. The case against the appellant is that he facilitated the main accused’s escape from the scene of the occurrence and aided him thereafter.

4. We have been informed that the co-accused has been granted bail and most of the examined witnesses have turned hostile. The appellant is also under incarceration for more than two years.

5. Considering the above, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and grant bail to the appellant.

6. Accordingly, the impugned order stands set aside and the appellant is granted bail, subject to the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Trial Court.

7. The appeal is allowed accordingly.

8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document