Bail granted where accused’s implication rests solely on inadmissible custodial statements without victim corroboration or identification.

The applicant, a 55-year-old labourer, filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The prosecution alleged that the victim (aged 16) was kidnapped and sold by other accused persons to one Akash Mewada for Rs. 2 Lacs.

The applicant was implicated based on statements from co-accused suggesting he acted as an intermediary in the transaction.

The applicant has been in judicial custody since February 2, 2026, following the withdrawal of his first bail application in March 2026.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the lack of direct identification by the victim and the nature of evidence (confessions of co-accused).

2. Whether the principle of parity applies given that a co-accused, Hemraj, was granted bail on May 4, 2026.

The Court considered the provisions for bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 439 CrPC).

Substantively, it applied the law regarding the admissibility of evidence, noting that self-incriminating statements made to the police and statements of co-accused in custody are generally inadmissible to prove guilt at the bail stage.

The Court further applied Sections 137(2), 238, 64(1), 142, 143, and 144 of the BNS and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act regarding the underlying offences, while balanced against Article 21 principles concerning the socio-economic status of the accused and the duration of trial.

The Court observed that while the prosecution alleged the applicant was instrumental in the human trafficking transaction, the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS did not name or implicate him.

Furthermore, no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted to link the applicant to the crime, and no incriminating material was seized from him.

The Court noted the applicant is a 55-year-old labourer with no criminal antecedents and family roots, reducing the risk of flight or tampering with evidence.

The Court found prima facie merit in the applicant’s contention that the evidence was purely circumstantial and based on inadmissible custodial statements, warranting parity with the co-accused who had already been released.

The Court ordered 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, refraining from committing similar offences, and non-interference with witnesses.