Bail is a rule in pre-conviction cases; undue delay in trial and unreliable witness identification justify granting bail.

ORDER :

1. The instant 2^nd application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS (439 of Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in the present matter. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

2. The 1^st bail application filed on behalf of petitioner i.e. S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7370/2025 was dismissed vide order dated 21.11.2025 passed by this Court with the liberty to the petitioner to file fresh bail application after recording the statement of constable-Shreechand. After rejection of first bail application, the statement of constable-Shreechand has been recorded as P.W. 01. Hence, this second application for bail has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the contents of FIR, the petitioner has been implicated in the present case on the basis of identification by constable-Shreechand, who was a member of the seizing team, the relevant portion FIR is reproduced as under:

4. It is further submitted that the statement of constable-Shreechand has been recorded as PW-1. It is submitted that in his examination-in-chief, PW-1 stated that the petitioner was identified by him, however, during cross-examination, he categorically denied the said identification, which reads as under:

5. Learned counsel further submits that a bare perusal of the aforesaid statement clearly establishes that during cross- examination constable-Shreechand has denied the identification of the petitioner.

6. It is also submitted that as per the statement of the Patwari recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the premises from where alleged contraband was recovered belongs to the father of the petitioner Mohan Ram. It is contended that as per the revenue record, which forms part of the charge-sheet, there are as many as 48 Khatedars who are co-sharers of the said land. Therefore, the petitioner is neither the exclusive nor the individual owner of the said premises and his implication is false and fabricated.

7. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 10.02.2024 (approximately two years), charge-sheet has already been filed; only one prosecution witness out of a total of 23 prosecution witnesses has been examined till date; the trial of the case is likely to take a considerable time to conclude. Therefore, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.

8. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Orissa , Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 4169/2023 and Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 915 of 2023. Learned counsel has further placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 8523/2024, in which, while granting bail, it has been observed as under:

“9. The incident in the present case occurred on 25.06.2020 and the petitioner was arrested soon thereafter on 26.06.2020. By now, 6 co-accused have been granted bail. As the prosecution wishes to examine 17 more witnesses, the trial is unlikely to conclude on a near date.

10. Considering the above and to avoid the situation of the trial process itself being the punishment particularly when there is presumption of innocence under the Indian jurisprudence, we deem it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner - Balwinder Singh. It is ordered accordingly. Appropriate bail conditio