The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 outweighs the gravity of the offense when an accused has undergone prolonged incarceration and the prosecution fails to examine key witnesses in a timely manner.

ORAL ORDER

1. Accused No.1 in SC No.40/2023 pending before the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, arising out of Crime No.304/2022 registered by Channapatna Rural Police Station, Ramanagara, for the offences punishable under Sections 120B , 302, 109, 114, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC, is before this Court in this successive bail petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, with a prayer to release him on regular bail.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. FIR in Crime No.304/2022 was registered by Channapatna Rural Police Station, Ramanagara, initially for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC against petitioner and others, based on the first information dated 29.11.2022 received from Smt. Jayalakshmi, mother of deceased Shivaprakash. During the course of investigation, petitioner herein was arrested on 30.11.2022 and remanded to judicial custody. After completing investigation, charge sheet has been filed against six persons. Petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1 in the charge sheet. His bail application filed before the Trial Court was rejected and therefore, he had approached this Court in Crl.P.No.13606/2023 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 14.08.2024 with liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court after examination of CW1 to CW4 is completed before the Trial Court. Subsequently, petitioner has filed a fresh bail application before the Trial Court in SC No.40/2023 which was rejected on 15.09.2025. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a youngster, who is aged about 21 years and is in custody for the last more than three years. He has no other criminal antecedents. CW1 to CW4 have been dropped in the present case by the Trial Court by order dated 29.07.2025. Accused Nos.3 to 6 are released on bail in the present case. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

5. Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition on the ground that CW1 to CW4 are the eye witnesses to the incident in question. Deceased had suffered as many as 16 injuries as a result of assault made by the petitioner and other accused. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he is likely to tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

6. In the first information submitted by the mother of the deceased, she has stated that her son Shivaprakash and the petitioner herein were close friends. On 25.11.2022, Shivaprakash had informed the first informant that petitioner had quarreled with him and also threatened him with dire consequences to his life on a petty issue. On 29.11.2022 at about 09.30 p.m., when the first informant was in her house along with the family members, petitioner came near her house and asked her son Shivaprakash to come out of the house. Accordingly, Shivaprakash had accompanied petitioner and thereafter at about 10:00 p.m., she heard her son shouting. Immediately, she and her family members went towards the place where Shivaprakash was shouting and found that petitioner was assaulting her son Shivaprakash on his head with some weapon. After seeing the first informant and her family members, petitioner allegedly ran away from the spot. Thereafter, Shivaprakash was shifted to a Hospital. It is under these circumstances, FIR was initially registered against petitioner and others in Crime No.304