Supreme Court granted regular bail in serious offence case involving alleged spontaneous scuffle, noting prolonged custody without trial commencement and rejecting High Court's one-year re-application directive.

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in Bail Application No.4331 of 2025.

3. The appellant has been facing trial in connection with a crime registered pursuant to FIR No. 1148 of 2024 dated 29.10.2024 lodged with Police Station: Mahatma Phule Chowk, District: Thane City in respect of offences punishable under Section 103 (1) read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [in short, “BNS”].

4. The application seeking regular bail having been rejected by the High Court vide impugned order dated 24.11.2025, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.

5. This Court, vide its order dated 24.02.2026, issued notice in the instant matter.

6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal and learned counsel for the respondent-State and perused the material on record.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the offences charged against the appellant under Sections 103 (1) read with Section 3 (5) of the BNS are wholly false inasmuch as there was no criminal intent to commit the said offences; there was a scuffle and an altercation which happened spontaneously, but the charges framed against the appellant are serious and wholly false; that the appellant has been in jail since 29.10.2024; although the charges have been framed, there is no commencement of the trial as such. In the circumstances, this Court may take note that the completion of the trial would be delayed. The High Court has failed to appreciate this aspect and has observed that the appellant can approach for bail after completion of one year from the date of the order of the High Court which is 24.11.2025. Learned counsel submitted that no purpose would be served in incarcerating the appellant till then. Hence, the impugned order may be set aside and relief of bail may be granted to the appellant.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent with reference to her counter-affidavit contended that serious charges have been alleged against the appellant herein and two others under Sections 103 (1) read with Section 3 (5) of the BNS; that the material witnesses have to be examined and therefore, any relief of bail being granted to the appellant herein may frustrate and jeopardize the trial. She therefore submitted that there is no merit in this appeal.

9. Considering the facts on record, in our view, the case for regular bail is made out.

10. We, therefore, allow this appeal and direct as under:

“The appellant shall be produced before the concerned trial Court as early as possible and the trial Court shall release him on bail, subject to such conditions as it may deem appropriate to impose to ensure his presence in the proceedings arising out of FIR No.1148 of 2024 mentioned above.”

11. It is directed that the appellant shall extend complete cooperation in the trial of the instant case.

12. The appellant shall not misuse his liberty in any manner.

13. Any infraction of the conditions may entail cancellation of bail granted to the appellant.

14. With these observations, the appeal is allowed.