Bail denied where prima facie involvement and potential witness influence arise in serious allegations involving a minor.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 123/2025 registered at Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja, concerning offences stated in the order as punishable under Sections 107 and 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The deceased, Suman Agariya, aged approximately 17 years, was allegedly in a relationship with the applicant. On 3 November 2024, when Suman was with her prospective husband, Sahil, the applicant allegedly arrived and forcibly took her away. On the following day, she was found hanging from a Mahua tree.

An offence was initially registered under Section 108 of the BNS, and the investigation subsequently culminated in filing of a charge-sheet against the applicant; the order also refers to the alleged offence as Section 307 of the BNS.

The applicant had been in custody since 1 April 2026. He relied on the alleged four-month-and-fourteen-day delay in registration of the FIR, filing of the charge-sheet, his asserted absence from the place of occurrence, and the absence of any need for further custodial interrogation.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the deceased was a minor and that the material collected during investigation prima facie indicated the applicant’s involvement.

1. Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, having regard to the nature of the allegations, the material in the case diary, and the period of custody.

2. Whether the applicant’s defence concerning false implication, his alleged absence, delay in registration of the FIR, and filing of the charge-sheet justified grant of bail at the pre-trial stage.

3. Whether the possibility of the applicant influencing witnesses or tampering with the prosecution evidence warranted rejection of bail.

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

In exercising bail jurisdiction, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the prima facie material in the case diary, the age of the deceased, the stage of the trial, and the likelihood of the accused influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.

The Court further treated pleas of innocence, false implication, disputed factual defences, and challenges to the prosecution case as matters ordinarily requiring appreciation of evidence at trial rather than determination at the bail stage.

The Court found that the material on record prima facie indicated the applicant’s involvement in taking away the minor deceased, subjecting her to mental torture, and instigating her to commit suicide, following which she was allegedly found hanging.

The seriousness of the allegations, the deceased’s age, and the alleged manner of commission weighed against bail. Although the applicant relied on the delay in the FIR, his alleged absence, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the absence of a need for further custodial interrogation, the Court treated these contentions as matters of defence requiring evaluation during trial.

Since the evidence had already commenced, the Court held that the possibility of the applicant influencing material witnesses or tampering with prosecution evidence could not be ruled out.

The rejection was based principally on the prima facie case, the gravity of the allegations, the minor age of the deceased, and the risk of interference with witnesses or evidence.

The Court nevertheless requested the trial court to make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial within six months from receipt of the certified order, subject to there being no legal impediment.

The Court directed that a certified copy be sent to the trial court for compliance.