CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Bail — Prolonged incarceration — Serious offences under Sections 307 and 337 IPC — Slow trial — Change of section from 338 IPC to 307 IPC — Investigation concluded — Accused in custody for 901 days without trial movement — Presumption of innocence — Mere pendency of other allegations not ground to deny bail. Where petitioner was shown absconding in charge-sheet; arrested later via PT warrant; remained in custody 901 days; trial had not progressed and prosecution had not even scheduled evidence; co-ordinate crime under NDPS alleged but unrelated — Held, continued incarceration unjustified; bail granted subject to stringent conditions — Reference made to Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2020) 11 SCC 648 on presumption of innocence and irrelevance of antecedents for bail

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Bail — Prolonged incarceration — Serious offences under Sections 307 and 337 IPC — Slow trial — Change of section from 338 IPC to 307 IPC — Investigation concluded — Accused in custody for 901 days without trial movement — Presumption of innocence — Mere pendency of other allegations not ground to deny bail.
Where petitioner was shown absconding in charge-sheet; arrested later via PT warrant; remained in custody 901 days; trial had not progressed and prosecution had not even scheduled evidence; co-ordinate crime under NDPS alleged but unrelated — Held, continued incarceration unjustified; bail granted subject to stringent conditions — Reference made to Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2020) 11 SCC 648 on presumption of innocence and irrelevance of antecedents for bail.
(Crl.P. No.11602 of 2025, decided on 08-12-2025, per Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao, J.)

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

1. Factual Matrix

• FIR No.362/2019 was initially registered under Section 338 IPC.

• In investigation, alleged design to kill victim (Ramarao) by staging a road accident owing to family financial disputes.

• Section of law altered to Section 307 IPC based on alleged attempt to murder.

• Petitioner purchased a used Scorpio car for alleged execution of plan.

• Charge-sheet filed showing petitioner as absconding; later PT warrant executed.

• Petitioner arrested on 21-06-2023; custody continued for 901 days.

• Trial has not commenced; even the schedule for prosecution evidence not issued.

2. Stand of Prosecution

Learned APP submitted:

• Petitioner also involved in another NDPS crime (FIR 527/2020).

This was brought to resist bail.

3. Judicial Evaluation

A. On criminal antecedents

Court applied the ratio of Prabhakar Tewari v. State of UP (2020) 11 SCC 648:

• Mere pendency of other case cannot defeat bail request,

• because presumption of innocence governs until guilt is proven.

B. On delay and incarceration

Court noted:

• Petitioner is under-trial,

• Custody spans 901 days,

• No progress in trial for over 2½ years.

Thus, continued custody serves no purpose.

C. On likelihood of fleeing or obstructing justice

Court noted:

• Petitioner is a permanent resident (fixed abode) at Visakhapatnam,

• With bond and stringent terms, risk of evasion is manageable.

4. Governing Legal Principles Applied

• Article 21 principles on personal liberty and speedy trial.

• Presumption of innocence, affirmed by Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari.

• Bail jurisprudence emphasises that punitive detention prior to commencement of trial is impermissible unless justified by compelling grounds.

• Where trial stagnates and accused has a fixed residence, conditional bail suffices fairness.

CONCLUSION

The Court held:

• 901-day incarceration with stagnant trial violates fairness.

• The petitioner is entitled to bail despite reference to another FIR, because antecedents alone cannot negate liberty.

• The petitioner can be effectively secured through stringent conditions, including appearance, cooperation, territorial restriction, surrender of passport, and prohibition on influencing witnesses.

Accordingly:

• Criminal Petition allowed,

• Bail granted subject to seven detailed conditions, including execution of bond, regular attendance, cooperation, non-interference with witnesses, territorial limits, and liberty to seek cancellation upon breach.