Bail denied in murder case where last-seen evidence, weapon recovery, and extra-judicial confession implicated accused.

The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Khetrajpur P.S. Case No. 214 of 2025, corresponding to S.T. Case No. 352/80 of 2025, pending before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur.

He was accused under Sections 103(1), 238 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, for allegedly murdering Babu @ Chatani Yadav by assaulting him with deadly weapons along with co-accused persons in furtherance of their common intention.

The prosecution relied on the circumstances of the petitioner having been last seen with the deceased, recovery of the weapon at his instance, and his alleged extra-judicial confession before Arjun Joshi, Sananda Rohidas and Paban Satnami.

The petitioner contended that there was no direct evidence, that the circumstances did not specifically incriminate him, and that he had remained in custody for approximately one year.

The trial had not commenced and material witnesses had not yet been examined.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, having regard to the alleged last-seen circumstance, recovery of the weapon, extra-judicial confession, gravity of the offence, and the stage of the trial.

Whether, notwithstanding rejection of bail, the Court should direct expeditious completion of the trial.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant bail in serious criminal cases.

At the stage of bail, the Court is not required to undertake a detailed or meticulous examination of the evidence; it must consider the nature and gravity of the accusation, the materials indicating the accused’s involvement, the severity of the prescribed punishment, and the stage of the proceedings.

The alleged offences were under Sections 103(1), 238 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, involving murder, related conduct concerning evidence or information, and liability arising from common intention.

The Court also recognised that murder is punishable with imprisonment for life or death upon conviction, making the gravity of the accusation a significant consideration.

The Court found that the prosecution case was supported by multiple alleged circumstances: the petitioner was purportedly last seen with the deceased, the weapon was recovered at his instance, and he allegedly made an extra-judicial confession before witnesses.

Although the petitioner disputed the incriminating value of these circumstances and relied on the absence of direct evidence, the Court held that a detailed assessment of their evidentiary worth was impermissible at the bail stage.

The Court further considered the seriousness of the murder allegation, the possibility of a life or death sentence upon conviction, the alleged prior enmity arising from an earlier quarrel involving the deceased kicking the petitioner and demanding ₹10,000, and the fact that the trial had not yet commenced and material witnesses remained to be examined.

On this assessment, the Court concluded that the petitioner’s release on bail was not appropriate at that stage.

However, on the petitioner’s alternative oral prayer, it directed that the trial be expedited, subject to there being no other legal impediment, and directed that a copy of the order be transmitted immediately to the court conducting the trial.