Table of Content
1. application for bail based on prolonged custody, parity with co-accused, and trial delay. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. criminal antecedents and gravity of offence are not absolute bars to the grant of bail. (Para 5 , 6)
3. prolonged incarceration without trial completion violates the right to liberty under article 21. (Para 7)
4. grant of bail subject to strict conditions to ensure trial integrity and prevent witness tampering. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)

Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.699 dated 02.12.2017, registered at Police Station Hodal, District Palwal, under Sections 216, 302 and 34 IPC.

2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for 8 years and more than 1 month. As per the FIR, the allegations were against 4 persons, who had come on two different motor-cycles and fired at Surendra and his friend Boli. Co-accused namely Digamber and Ashok have since been granted bail by the trial Court while Deepak by this Court, vide order dated 13.07.2022, Annexure P-5, after being in custody for about 3 years. The petitioner has been implicated on account of previous enmity with the complainant, who is from the same village. Recovery of pistol from him is in some other case, however, the motor-cycle in the present case. Charges have been framed on 22.01.2020, 18 PWs, including material witnesses, stand examined, but there are still 10 more to go. The trial is not likely to be completed soon as initially, there was an application filed for re-examination of the witnesses, which was allowed and now an application for alteration of charge has been submitted by the prosecution, which is pending, reference is made to zimni orders, Annexures P-4 (colly.). He is involved in 2 other cases in which he has been granted bail. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others , 2012(2) SCC 382

3. The custody certificate dated 03.02.2026, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 8 years, 1 month and 6 days.

4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are specific allegations against the petitioner of having actively participated in the commission of offence and fired at the deceased. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the case; co-accused having been released on bail and the petitioner being on bail.

5. Heard.

6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (Supra)had held that,

“As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court, etc.”

Reiterating in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of UP and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, it was observed that,

“The offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and there are several criminal cases pending against the accused. These factors by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail.”

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 8 years, 1 month and 6 days; on bail in other cases; co-accused are on bail; charges stand framed on 22.01.2020, however, 18 PWs, including the material witnesses, have been examined, out of 28; the trial is likely to take a considerable time, further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the present petition is allowed.

8. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document