Bail granted where accused's implication rests solely on co-accused's memorandum statement without independent corroboration.

The applicant sought his first bail application following his arrest on May 20, 2025, in relation to Crime No. 174/2025.

The prosecution alleged that on April 24, 2025, several individuals (Shivam, Kamlesh, and others) assaulted the complainant’s son, Ajaypal, with firearms over a land dispute.

While the applicant was not named in the initial FIR, he was subsequently identified based on a memorandum statement given by co-accused Shivam during the investigation.

The applicant was charged under Sections 109(1) (Abetment/Punishment of Abetment) or 109(1) r/w 3/5 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering his implication is based primarily on the memorandum statement of a co-accused.

2. Whether the applicant’s criminal antecedents and the nature of the allegations outweigh the principles of personal liberty and the likelihood of a prolonged trial.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) regarding the grant of bail.

It relied on the settled legal principle that a memorandum statement of a co-accused recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is, by itself, insufficient to establish involvement without independent, cogent, or corroborative evidence.

Furthermore, the court applied the judicial doctrine that prolonged pre-trial detention is an "anathema" to the concept of personal liberty.

The Court examined the evidence against the applicant and found that his implication rested solely on the statement of co-accused Shivam.

The defense argued that no independent material connected the applicant to the crime and that he was a permanent resident who posed no flight risk.

Although the State opposed the bail citing the applicant’s three prior criminal cases, the Court balanced the gravity of the charges against the procedural reality that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon.

The Court determined that since the main evidence was a co-accused's statement and the applicant had committed to abide by all judicial conditions, continued incarceration was not warranted.

The bail is subject to conditions including cooperation with the trial, non-tampering of evidence, and a "zero-tolerance" clause stating the bail would be automatically cancelled if the applicant commits any further offence during the trial period.