Bail granted in murder trial where prosecution relies primarily on co-accused statements and lacks direct incriminating evidence.

The applicant, Rajaram, filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in connection with Crime No. 119/2024 involving charges under Sections 302, 201, 120-B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

On March 22, 2024, the bodies of two individuals, Keshav and Gajendra, were recovered near Kandarwasa Bypass; medical reports confirmed they died of multiple antemortem injuries.

The prosecution alleged a conspiracy where the accused used a Creta car to ram the victims' motorcycle before assaulting them.

The applicant was arrested on April 28, 2024, following information provided by co-accused in police custody.

A wooden stick was allegedly seized from the applicant, though the seizure witness did not support the prosecution's case.

The applicant’s first bail application was withdrawn on April 21, 2025.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the circumstantial nature of the evidence and the principle of parity with co-accused.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

The principles of circumstantial evidence and the limited evidentiary value of statements made by co-accused while in police custody.

The Court also assessed the doctrine of parity, noting that several co-accused had already been extended the benefit of bail.

The Court evaluated the impact of criminal antecedents versus the lack of prior convictions in determining the likelihood of the applicant fleeing or tampering with evidence.

The Court observed that the prosecution’s case against the applicant rests predominantly on circumstantial evidence and the disclosure statements of co-accused.

It noted several evidentiary gaps, including the absence of eye-witnesses, the failure to trace the applicant’s fingerprints in the vehicle, and the lack of FSL or DNA reports linking the seized wooden stick to the crime.

The Court highlighted that the seizure witness (PW-16) turned hostile and the tower location data did not conclusively support the accusation.

Regarding the state's objection based on the applicant's seven criminal antecedents, the Court accepted the applicant's rebuttal that three cases resulted in acquittals and no convictions had been recorded.

Given that 21 out of 80 witnesses had been examined and six co-accused were already on bail, the Court found that continued incarceration was unnecessary and that there was no significant risk of the applicant tampering with the remaining evidence.

The holding was based on the prima facie merit of the applicant's contentions regarding his role and the nature of the evidence.

The Court ordered the applicant's release upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 75,000 with one surety of the same amount, subject to conditions including regular attendance at trial, no further involvement in similar offenses, and no tampering with evidence or witnesses.

The Court clarified that these observations were limited to the bail application and would not affect the merits of the trial.