At the bail stage, courts assess prima facie material without conducting a mini-trial.

The petitioners, arrayed as accused Nos. 2 and 3, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a prosecution alleging offences under Sections 103, 238 and 61 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution case arose from the death of the complainant’s father on 9 October 2024. The complainant alleged that CCTV footage had been deleted and that her mother, accused No. 1, had a connection with accused No. 2 and a motive arising from property disputes.

The petitioners disputed the allegations, relying, among other matters, on the complainant’s later statement, the asserted medical opinion that the death was natural, and the absence of injuries.

The State and the de facto complainant opposed bail, pointing to the alleged prima facie case and the rejection of bail for accused Nos. 1, 4 and 5.

Whether the material presented by the prosecution disclosed a prima facie case against accused Nos. 2 and 3 sufficient to refuse regular bail.

Whether the petitioners should be enlarged on bail, having regard to the allegations, seriousness of the offences, and risks relevant to bail.

The Court considered the bail jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in relation to the alleged offences under Sections 103, 238, 61 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

At the bail stage, the Court must assess whether a prima facie case exists and should not conduct a mini-trial or finally evaluate the prosecution evidence.

The Court observed that a statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC may be used to corroborate or contradict a witness’s testimony at trial, and treated the CDRs and CCTV footage as potentially corroborative material.

The petitioners cited State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani, (2003) 7 SCC 291, and Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731, concerning the cautious assessment of a witness who gives inconsistent statements and the need to consider the creditworthy part of hostile-witness testimony; the Court did not make those authorities the basis of its decision.

The Court considered the statements of CW24 and CW25, including CW24’s account that accused No. 2 was present after the deceased was found, and the allegation that CCTV footage had been deleted at accused No. 1’s instruction.

It also noted the CDRs and CCTV footage, the alleged seizure of a pillow and blanket, and the prosecution’s account of the other accused’s conduct.

Although the petitioners disputed the alleged homicide and relied on the medical opinion and absence of injuries, the Court held that the cause of death required determination at trial and that it could not resolve the competing versions at the bail stage.

It found prima facie material against the petitioners, noted the alleged role attributed to them and the prior rejection of bail for co-accused, and considered the seriousness of the offence and risks associated with release.

The criminal petition was rejected; no bail was granted.