Bail granted under exceptional circumstances due to lengthy custody and lack of eyewitness in circumstantial evidence case.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY)

7 05-12-2025 Re: I.A no.2 of 2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

2. The sole appellant has renewed his prayer for bail during pendency of the instant appeal.

3. The appellant was convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-. Further in default, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years. The appellant was also convicted under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. Further for default in payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

Both the sentences having been directed to run concurrently.

4. The appeal was admitted on 8.7.2020 and the prayer for bail of the appellant was rejected on merits on

3.9.2020 and again on 6.7.2022.

5. It is submitted by learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant that it is a case of circumstantial evidence with no eyewitness to the occurrence. The appellant has good case on merits. He has remained in custody since 15.2.2018 for more than 7 years 9 months. There being no chance of the appeal being taken up in the near future, the appellant be enlarged on bail during pendency of the instant appeal.

6. The prayer for bail is opposed by learned counsel appearing for the State as also learned counsel appearing for the informant. Learned counsel appearing for the informant submits that the prayer for bail of the appellant already having been rejected on merits, the only point for consideration can be the period of custody.

7. Reliance is placed on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Arif vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) no. 14372 of 2024) wherein it is submitted by learned counsel that the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the prayer for bail after the appellant had remained in custody for 10 years. However, on a query having been put by the Court as to whether the case therein was one of circumstantial evidence as in the present appeal, learned counsel for the informant submits that the same was not a case of circumstantial evidence.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, specially the appellant having remained in custody since 15.2.2018 for a period of more than 7 years 9 months, the case being one of circumstantial evidence and there being no chance of the appeal being taken up for hearing in the near future, in the facts of the case, it is directed that during pendency of the instant appeal, the appellant be released on bail in connection with Sessions Trial no.97 of 2018, arising out of Kochadaman P.S. Case no.22 of 2018 (G.R. no.243 of 2018) on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Kishanganj.

9. It is further directed that during pendency of the appeal, the order of payment of fine shall remain stayed.

10. I. A. no. 2 of 2025 stands allowed.

(Partha Sarthy, J)