Prolonged custody and stalled trial justified bail where recovery witnesses were absent and detention no longer aided the case.

Prolonged custody, non-commencement of trial, and failure of the prosecution to produce panch witnesses for the recovery proceedings supported grant of bail in a second bail application. The Court treated the long incarceration and stalled trial as relevant to continued detention, and noted that the absence of material search witnesses weakened the credibility of the recovery. Bail was granted subject to conditions imposed by the Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicants were entitled to bail in a second bail application in view of prolonged custody, non-commencement of trial, and the absence of material search witnesses.

Analysis: The applicants had remained in custody since 7.12.2018, the charges had not been framed, and the trial had not progressed. The record also indicated non-appearance of the panch witnesses before the adjudicating authority, which was considered relevant to the credibility of the recovery proceedings. In the prevailing situation, further detention was found unnecessary for the progress of the case.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the applicants on terms and conditions imposed by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail may be granted where custody is prolonged, the trial has not commenced, and the prosecution is unable to effectively substantiate the recovery through the witnesses required by the search procedure.

---