Absence of corroborative evidence beyond co-accused memorandum statement warrants bail despite criminal antecedents.

The applicant filed his first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) following his arrest on February 4, 2026.

The prosecution alleged that on the night of May 15-16, 2025, the applicant and accomplices illegally felled 40-50 year-old Khair trees in a reserved forest within the Son Chidiya Sanctuary using machines.

While a co-accused (Hamid) and a truck were apprehended at the scene, the applicant allegedly fled using his knowledge of forest routes.

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated based solely on a co-accused's memorandum statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

The State opposed bail, citing the applicant’s seven prior criminal antecedents.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail considering the nature of the evidence and the duration of the trial.

2. Whether the criminal antecedents of the applicant act as an absolute bar to the grant of bail under the present circumstances.

The court considered Section 483 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC) regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

It applied the principle that a memorandum statement of a co-accused, recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, requires independent corroboration to establish a prima facie case.

Furthermore, the court relied on the Jurisprudential doctrine that prolonged pre-trial detention is "an anathema to the concept of liberty".

The Court weighed the seriousness of the forest and wildlife offences against the quality of the evidence.

It noted that the primary connection between the applicant and the crime was the statement of a co-accused, which the defense argued lacked independent corroboration.

Although the State highlighted the applicant's criminal history (seven cases), the Court found that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future.

The Court determined that the necessity of protecting individual liberty outweighed the State's objections, provided that stringent conditions were imposed to ensure the applicant's presence and prevent witness tampering.

The holding is subject to conditions including: full cooperation with the investigation/trial, no tampering with evidence or witnesses, no commission of further offences (otherwise bail stands automatically cancelled), and no leaving the country without permission.

The application was disposed of without commenting on the merits of the case.