Bail denied in grave offences while investigation remains incomplete and wider involvement is suspected.

The applicant, aged 55 years and a jewellery-shop owner, was arrested on 10 June 2026 in connection with Crime No. 247/2024 registered at Police Station Malkharoda, District Sakti, for offences under Sections 103(1), 331(8), 309(2), 238, 317(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that Magan Lal Gabel and Budhwara Bai Gabel were murdered in their house and that silver and gold ornaments were looted.

During investigation, co-accused persons allegedly disclosed that the stolen ornaments had been sold to the applicant after being melted. On that basis, the applicant was implicated and arrested.

The applicant denied involvement in the murders and claimed that he had purchased the ornaments in the ordinary course of business, without knowledge that they were stolen, and that the alleged articles had already been recovered.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the applicant’s involvement in the offence could not be ruled out and that custodial interrogation was necessary while investigation remained pending.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pending investigation into offences involving murder and alleged dealing in stolen property.

2. Whether the gravity and manner of the alleged offences, the incomplete investigation, and the possibility of the applicant’s involvement in other connected offences justified refusal of bail.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which governs the High Court’s power to grant bail in cases involving an accused in custody.

In exercising that discretion, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the alleged offences, the manner of their commission, the stage of investigation, and the possibility of the applicant’s involvement in connected offences.

The prosecution case involved offences under Sections 103(1), 331(8), 309(2), 238, 317(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

Although the applicant asserted that he had merely purchased the ornaments without knowledge of their illicit origin and that the articles had already been recovered, the Court gave primary weight to the seriousness of the allegations, including the double murder and alleged handling of the looted property.

The investigation had not yet concluded, and the State contended that the applicant’s involvement in the crime and potentially in other offences arising from the same transaction required further investigation and custodial remand.

Considering the gravity and manner of the alleged offences, the incomplete investigation, and the possibility of wider involvement, the Court held that the applicant had not made out a fit case for bail at that stage.

However, it granted liberty to the applicant to revive the bail application after filing of the charge-sheet.

The Registry was directed to provide a certified copy of the order to the concerned trial Court for information and compliance.