Bail granted where ballistic inconsistencies and non-identification undermined the prosecution’s last-seen evidence.

The petitioner sought regular bail in FIR No. 743/2020 registered at Police Station Bawana for offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution case originated from a “blind FIR” lodged after the deceased failed to return home and his father identified a dead body discovered in the area. The deceased had allegedly been shot twice with a pistol.

The petitioner had remained in custody since 04.10.2021. Of 25 prosecution witnesses, only five had been examined, with the remaining witnesses stated to be formal witnesses.

The State opposed bail, relying principally on alleged last-seen evidence of PW1, the deceased’s wife, and her purported identification of the petitioner through CCTV footage.

The Court also noted that the status report had not been filed despite directions and that, in the bail proceedings of co-accused Aman, the investigation had been criticised as incomplete and misleading.

The Court considered the offences alleged under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

In deciding regular bail, the Court assessed the apparent strength and credibility of the prosecution material, the circumstances undermining the prosecution case, the duration of custody, the progress of trial, and the principle of parity with a similarly placed co-accused who had already been granted bail.

The Court further applied the settled principle that observations at the bail stage are tentative and cannot influence the trial court’s independent assessment of the evidence.

The Court found material weaknesses in the prosecution case. First, the alleged pistol recovered from co-accused Sanjay was of .32 bore, whereas the bullets recovered from the deceased were of .315 bore; no .315-bore pistol had been recovered from or at the instance of any accused.

This discrepancy created doubt regarding the prosecution’s weapon-recovery theory.

Second, although the State relied on PW1 as the solitary last-seen witness and asserted that she identified the petitioner through CCTV footage, PW1 had categorically failed to identify the petitioner in her chief-examination.

These circumstances, coupled with the petitioner’s custody since 04.10.2021, the limited progress of the trial, and the grant of bail to co-accused Aman, led the Court to conclude that continued detention was not justified.

The Court expressly clarified that these observations were confined to adjudication of the bail application and would not bind the trial court.

The Court directed that the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court or Duty Magistrate.

A copy of the order was directed to be transmitted immediately to the concerned Jail Superintendent for informing the petitioner.