Absence of TIP and Unclear CCTV Footage Entitles Accused to Bail in Murder Case

The Applicant sought regular bail regarding FIR No. 0195 of 2025, involving the death of Jyoti Mer, a Yoga trainer

The Complainant (mother of the deceased) alleged that her daughter was mentally and physically tortured by the Applicant and his brother, who were her employers

On 31.07.2025, the deceased was found unconscious at her residence with injuries to her head, neck, and hands

The medical report confirmed the cause of death as ligature strangulation with blunt force trauma

The prosecution relied on CCTV footage showing masked individuals entering and exiting the premises around the time of the incident

The Applicant contended that he was implicated solely on suspicion without direct evidence or an eyewitness account

1. Whether the Applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the nature of the circumstantial evidence and the lack of identification in CCTV footage

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which provides the framework for granting bail in non-bailable offences.

Principle that for a conviction or detention based on circumstantial evidence (such as CCTV footage), there must be a clear link establishing the identity of the accused through a Test Identification Parade (TIP)

Section 103 (1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (Punishment for Murder)

The Court observed that while the medical evidence confirmed a brutal homicide via strangulation and assault, the nexus between the Applicant and the crime remained unestablished at this stage.

Upon perusing the CCTV footage, the Court noted that the persons seen were masked with blurred facial features, making their identities indiscernible

The prosecution’s failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP) meant there was no conclusive proof that the persons in the footage were the Applicant and his brother

The Court found the recovery of a "Dupatta" at the scene to be a matter for trial, noting that it could not yet be conclusively linked to the Applicant in the absence of corroborative material

The Court reasoned that the allegations of harassment were "vague and bald," and since the deceased lived alone, third-party involvement could not be definitively ruled in or out without further trial

The bail application was allowed, and the Applicant was ordered to be released on a personal bond with two reliable sureties, subject to cooperation with trial proceedings