Case at a Glance
The petitioner, accused No. 1 in a 2021 murder case arising from an incident at a bank in Koramangala, Bengaluru, had been in custody since 24 July 2021. Charges were framed in March 2023, but only 15 of the 111 charge-sheet witnesses had been examined and no witness had been examined for seven months; accused Nos. 4 to 11 were already on bail. The Karnataka High Court allowed his successive bail petition, holding that trial completion was ‘very remote’, that the material eyewitnesses had already been examined, and that, as held in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 08 SC CK 1104, the seriousness of the crime alone cannot defeat bail where a speedy trial cannot be ensured.
The case arises from Crime No. 156 of 2021 of Koramangala Police Station, registered on the complaint of the deceased’s wife about an incident at a bank on 19 July 2021. The charges include Sections 302, 307 and 120B read with Section 149 IPC and offences under the Arms Act. The petitioner was not named in the FIR; he was arrested on 24 July 2021, when a police officer shot him in the leg during the arrest of other accused. The charge sheet was filed against 11 persons and charges were framed on 9 March 2023 in S.C. No. 1416 of 2021.
Only PW-1 to PW-15 had been examined, the last on 25 March 2026. Accused Nos. 4 to 11 had been granted bail, leaving accused Nos. 1 to 3 in custody. The petitioner’s fresh bail application was dismissed by the Sessions Court on 16 September 2026, and he approached the High Court under Section 483 BNSS. His counsel pointed out that the bank officials examined (PW-11 to 15) said the assailants wore masks and could not be identified, a submission the State “has not seriously disputed”.
The Key Question Before the Court
Should an undertrial accused of murder, in custody for over five years with the trial far from complete, be released on bail on the ground of the right to a speedy trial?
When the Trial Cannot Finish, Long Custody Becomes the Deciding Factor
Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty observed that the petitioner had been in custody for more than five years and that completion of the trial was “very remote”. Since all the material eyewitnesses had already been examined, the apprehension of witness tampering no longer stood in the way. The Court relied on Sahil Manoj Machare v. State of Maharashtra, where bail was granted solely on the ground of incarceration, and on Saddam Hussain M.K. v. Union of India.
It also relied on Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, which holds that where the State or the court lacks the means to ensure a speedy trial, the prosecution should not oppose bail merely because the crime is serious. The Court clarified that it was expressing no opinion on the merits of the case.
What the Court Actually Held
- Custody of more than five years with trial completion ‘very remote’ justified bail despite the gravity of the charges.
- With the material eyewitnesses already examined, the risk of tampering with evidence did not weigh against release.
- The seriousness of the offence alone cannot defeat bail where a speedy trial cannot be ensured.
- Bail was granted on a personal bond of ₹1 lakh with two sureties, regular appearance, no contact with or threats to witnesses, no similar offences and no leaving the trial court’s jurisdiction without permission.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It applies the Supreme Court’s speedy-trial jurisprudence to a serious murder case at the High Court level.
- It shows how the stage of trial — whether key eyewitnesses have been examined — affects a successive bail plea.
- It underlines that prolonged pre-trial detention is itself a ground the court must weigh under Article 21.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Undertrials and Families
- A change in circumstances, such as years of custody and slow progress of trial, can support a fresh bail application.
- Bail on this ground comes with strict conditions; breach can lead to cancellation.
For Counsel
- Place on record the number of witnesses cited, examined and pending, and the gap since the last examination.
- Cite Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh and Sahil Manoj Machare when the prosecution relies only on gravity of the offence.
Key Takeaways
- Over five years of custody with only 15 of 111 witnesses examined led to bail.
- Co-accused Nos. 4 to 11 were already on bail.
- Gravity of the offence is not, by itself, a ground to keep an undertrial in jail indefinitely.
- No opinion was expressed on the merits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Was this the petitioner’s first bail plea?
No. It was a successive bail petition; an earlier petition had been withdrawn with liberty and the Sessions Court rejected his fresh application on 16 September 2026.
Why did the Court not fear witness tampering?
Because all the material eyewitnesses had already been examined.
What are the bail conditions?
A personal bond of ₹1 lakh with two sureties, appearance on all hearing dates, no threats to or tampering with witnesses, no similar offences, and no leaving the trial court’s jurisdiction without permission.
Conclusion
The High Court treated five years of custody, with a trial barely begun on evidence, as decisive. Where the system cannot deliver a timely trial, it cannot keep an undertrial in prison on the strength of the charge alone.
Practical takeaway: In long-pending trials, a bail application supported by concrete figures on custody period and trial progress can succeed even in serious offences.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com