Abetment Through Instigation and Psychological Reinforcement During Contemporaneous Recording of Crime Precludes Grant of Bail

The applicant, Rakhal Banerjee, sought bail following his arrest on July 17, 2024, in connection with the murder of Gaurav Jha.

The prosecution alleged that on the night of July 12, 2024, the applicant and co-accused assaulted and strangulated the deceased before dumping the body in bushes near Lambgaon.

Although the applicant initially informed the complainant about the incident and was not named in the FIR, subsequent investigation and FSL examination of the applicant’s mobile phone revealed deleted video recordings of the crime.

The state contended these videos show the applicant instigating the co-accused during the murder.

A charge-sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, given his claims of false implication and role as a mere witness.

2. Whether the act of recording a crime while providing verbal encouragement and provocation constitutes active complicity and abetment, thereby disentitling the accused to bail in a heinous offence.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), regarding the high court's power to grant bail.

Sections 103(1) (Murder), 238 (Causing disappearance of evidence), and 3(5) (Common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

Established principles of criminal jurisprudence which dictate that culpability is not limited to physical execution but extends to those who provide moral support, encouragement, or psychological reinforcement to principal offenders.

The Court rejected the applicant’s argument that he was a passive witness who merely recorded the incident for the police and observed that the FSL-recovered video transcripts prima facie show the applicant "continuously recording," "uttering words of instigation," and "encouraging" the co-accused during the assault and strangulation.

The Court reasoned that recording such acts instead of preventing them demonstrates a "conscious alignment" with the criminal act.

The court found that the subsequent deletion of the footage indicated an attempt to "obliterate incriminating material".

The Court emphasized that documented violence and alleged sexual assault for potential circulation add to the "gravity and depravity" of the offence, making bail inappropriate regardless of the length of incarceration.

Given the heinous nature of the murder, the prima facie evidence of active instigation through video documentation, and the recovery of the murder weapon on the pointing out of the accused, the Court found no merit for release on bail and rejected the bail application.