Absence of incriminating recovery and lack of direct evidence warrants grant of bail to young accused.

The applicant, Saurabh Thakur, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

He was arrested on January 5, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 03/2026 for the murder of one Abhishek, whose body was discovered on January 3, 2026, near Sahajpur bridge

According to the prosecution, co-accused persons (Nakul and Nitin) stated that while the applicant was involved in an initial altercation with the deceased, he had left for home before the actual fatal assault took place

No incriminating material was seized from the applicant, and video footage from a co-accused’s mobile showed other individuals committing the assault

The applicant, a 19-year-old driver with two pending criminal cases and no prior convictions, has been in custody for nearly four months

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the lack of direct incriminating evidence and the statements of co-accused indicating his absence during the commission of the offence

2. Whether the applicant's age, profession, and status as an under-trial justify release despite the gravity of the charges under the BNS

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail

It adhered to the established judicial principle that the veracity of prosecution claims and the complicity of the accused are matters for trial

The court considered the principles of "bail not jail" for young offenders (aged 19), assessing factors such as the likelihood of fleeing from justice, recidivism, or tampering with evidence in the absence of a substantial criminal past or previous convictions

The court also noted the procedural requirement of Section 346 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 309 of the Cr.P.C.) regarding the expeditious examination of witnesses

The Court analyzed the case diary and found that the prosecution's own evidence weakened the case against the applicant. It noted that the co-accused expressly stated the applicant "had left for home at the time of the incident"

the court highlighted the absence of any seizure of incriminating material at the applicant's instance and the fact that recovered video footage did not show his involvement in the assault

The Court reasoned that since the final report had already been submitted and the trial would take considerable time, continued incarceration would cause undue hardship to a young applicant who is still dependent on his family

The Court found no "compelling reason" to keep him in custody, as there was no evidence suggesting he would influence witnesses or flee

The High Court allowed the application and directed that Saurabh Thakur be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 75,000/- with one surety of the same amount