Bail granted to a senior citizen accused in communal violence lacking CCTV panchnama and TIP.

The applicant, a 74-year-old retired teacher, filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

He was arrested on February 20, 2026, following a communal clash near a temple and the Madina Masjid in Sihora, Jabalpur.

The prosecution alleged that a crowd pelted stones at a temple during an aarti, causing minor injuries and property damage.

Although the applicant's name was not in the FIR, he was later implicated based on CCTV footage where he was allegedly seen pelting stones from a masjid roof.

A previous bail application was withdrawn on March 20, 2026.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering his age, the nature of allegations, and the progress of the investigation.

2. Whether there is a likelihood of the applicant tampering with evidence or fleeing from justice if released.

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

The court also considered the procedural mandates of Section 346 of the BNSS (analogous to Section 309 of the CrPC) concerning the swift examination of witnesses during trial.

The decision rested on established principles of bail jurisprudence, including the gravity of the offense, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the socio-economic status of the applicant, and the potential for recidivism or interference with the judicial process.

The court observed that the investigation was complete and the final report had been submitted.

It noted that the applicant's name was notably absent from the initial FIR and his subsequent implication relied on CCTV footage for which no panchnama was available in the final report, nor was a Test Identification Parade (TIP) conducted.

The court highlighted the applicant's personal circumstances: he is 74 years old, a retired teacher with no prior criminal record, and has deep family roots, reducing the risk of him fleeing justice.

While the State opposed bail due to the gravity of the communal incident, it conceded the lack of criminal antecedents.

The court reasoned that since the injured sustained only simple injuries and the applicant’s complicity remains a matter of trial evidence, continued incarceration was unnecessary.

The High Court allowed the application and directed the release of the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 75,000 with one surety, subject to conditions including regular court attendance and refraining from committing further offenses.

The order remains effective until the conclusion of the trial unless conditions are breached.