Accused relatives may be granted bail where no specific overt act links them to murder.

The petitioners, accused Nos. 3 and 4, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in a case alleging offences including murder under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The prosecution alleged that, during a confrontation arising from a matrimonial dispute, accused No. 1 caused the death of the complainant’s son and accused No. 2 assaulted another son and injured the complainant; the petitioners were alleged to have participated in assaults at the scene.

The petitioners had been in judicial custody for more than two months, and the investigation remained ongoing.

Whether the petitioners should be granted regular bail despite the serious offences alleged and the ongoing investigation

Whether the material alleged against the petitioners, including their presence and participation in assaults, justified continued custody for the offence under Section 103(1) BNS

Section 483 BNSS empowers the High Court to grant bail.

The Court also referred to Section 480 BNSS, observing that the petitioner who was a woman was entitled to the benefit of that provision unless serious grounds for denial were shown.

The Court applied the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception,” and that pre-trial detention should not operate as punishment for the alleged offences.

It further considered the seriousness of the alleged offences, the petitioners’ alleged roles, custody already undergone, investigation requirements, residence, antecedents, and the possibility of addressing prosecution concerns through conditions.

Although the allegations included offences punishable with death or life imprisonment and the investigation was incomplete, the Court noted that the principal allegations concerned accused Nos. 1 and 2.

The petitioners’ alleged role was presence at the scene and participation in assaults, with no specific overt act attributed to them in committing the murder; accordingly, the Court found no reason at that stage to believe that they were implicated in the Section 103(1) offence.

Their custody of more than two months, the absence of a demonstrated need for further custodial interrogation, their local residence, and the absence of material showing prior similar offences weighed in favour of release.

The Court considered that conditions could address concerns about investigation, witnesses, and attendance; it also took account of the second petitioner’s status as a woman.

The prosecution or complainant may seek cancellation of bail if the conditions are breached.