Bail granted where circumstantial evidence lacks forensic corroboration and parity with co-accused is established.

The applicant, Ramesh Bheel, filed a third application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in connection with Crime No. 343/2024.

He was charged under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, for the alleged murder of one Sunil by strangulation using a flexible plastic pipe on 12.10.2024.

The applicant has been in judicial custody since 16.10.2024; his two previous bail applications were dismissed as withdrawn or rejected in early 2025.

The prosecution's case rests on circumstantial evidence, primarily a motive involving a stale dispute over an electric pole and the recovery of a plastic pipe.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, in light of the nature of the circumstantial evidence and the absence of criminal antecedents?

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail on the grounds of parity with a co-accused who has already been released?

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, regarding the discretionary power to grant bail during a trial.

In evaluating the merits, the Court relied on the principles governing circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that the chain of circumstances must be prima facie strong enough to justify continued incarceration.

It further considered the principle of parity in bail matters and the socio-economic factors of the accused as relevant to the risk of recidivism or fleeing justice.

The Court observed that the prosecution’s case is entirely circumstantial.

It noted that the alleged motive—a dispute over an electric pole—was "trivial and stale".

Regarding the physical evidence, the Court found the recovery of the plastic pipe insufficient for prima facie guilt because the FSL report showed no blood stains and the Medical Officer's report failed to match the width of the pipe to the ligature marks on the deceased.

The Court highlighted that the investigation is complete, the final report has been filed, and only the examination-in-chief of two witnesses has been recorded, suggesting the trial will be protracted.

the Court noted the applicant is a 46-year-old labourer with no criminal antecedents and that co-accused Ravi Chouhan had already been granted bail.

Consequently, the Court found no compelling reason to continue incarceration, as there was no evident risk of the applicant tampering with evidence or fleeing.

The Court held that the contentions regarding the weakness of the circumstantial evidence had prima facie substance and that the applicant met the criteria for release pending trial.

The release is subject to five specific conditions, including mandatory court attendance, prohibition of further offences, and non-interference with witnesses.