Bail granted on parity where conspiracy is alleged solely via call records without supporting transcripts.

The applicant, Javed, was arrested on 11/10/2024 following the murder of Guddu @ Kalim in Ujjain

The prosecution alleged that the deceased’s sons, Danish and Asif @ Mintu, conspired to kill their father over a property dispute in association with Sohrab Sheikh

Javed, the brother of Sohrab, was accused of introducing the conspirators and facilitating the procurement of the murder weapon

The applicant was implicated primarily based on Call Detail Records (CDRs) showing communication with other accused and statements made while in police custody

This was the applicant's third bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, as the first was withdrawn and the second was dismissed on merits

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, in light of the nature of the evidence and the grant of bail to a co-accused

2. Whether the continued incarceration of the applicant is justified given the pace of the trial and the lack of transcript evidence for the CDRs

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC) regarding the discretionary power of the High Court to grant bail

It adhered to the principle of parity, noting that a co-accused with a more significant alleged role had already been granted bail

It applied the evidentiary principle that CDRs without accompanying transcripts or text content are insufficient for a conclusive inference of conspiracy at the bail stage

statements made to the police are generally inadmissible

The Court observed that the applicant was neither the primary conspirator nor the executor of the murder

It found that the prosecution's reliance on CDRs was prima facie weak because the actual content of the communications was unavailable to establish the nature of the conspiracy

The Court placed significant weight on the fact that the alleged main conspirator, Asif @ Mintu, had already been extended the benefit of bail, making the applicant's case for parity strong

The Court noted that only 5 out of 63 prosecution witnesses had been examined since the applicant's arrest in 2024, indicating that the trial would take considerable time to conclude

The applicant's professional background as a mechanic and his lack of substantial criminal history further suggested a low risk of flight or witness tampering

It held that because the applicant was not a main executor and parity applied, continued incarceration was not required

The Court ordered the applicant's release on a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one solvent surety, subject to conditions including regular court attendance and a prohibition against tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses