Bail granted where co-accused confessions were the sole incriminating material and investigation was complete.

Facts

The appellant was named as an accused in Khodawandpur P.S. Case No. 9 of 2026, registered for offences under Sections 103(1), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Source reference: p.1, para. 2

The prosecution alleged that the informant’s brother was murdered by unknown persons; a motorcycle belonging to the deceased, three used cartridges and the deceased’s mobile phone were recovered from or near the place of occurrence.

Source reference: p.2, para. 5

The appellant had been in custody since 18 February 2026.

Source reference: p.2, para. 4

The prosecution case against him principally arose from the alleged confessional statements of co-accused Prince Kumar @ Lakhan, Raja Kumar and Golu Kumar, who allegedly stated that the appellant had fired at the deceased’s temporal region.

Source reference: p.3, paras. 6–8

The appellant contended that no independent incriminating material, including the Call Detail Record, connected him with the offence.

Source reference: p.3, para. 9

Investigation had been completed and charge-sheet had been submitted.

Source reference: p.4, para. 11

The Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Begusarai, refused bail by order dated 28 July 2026. The appellant challenged that order under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

Source reference: p.1, para. 2

The appeal was held to be within limitation under Section 14A(3) of the Act.

Source reference: p.2, para. 3

Issues

Whether the appellant was entitled to bail when, apart from the alleged confessional statements of co-accused persons, no substantial incriminating material had surfaced connecting him with the murder?

Source reference: p.5, para. 15

Whether the completion of investigation, submission of the charge-sheet and the appellant’s period of custody supported the grant of bail?

Source reference: p.4, para. 11; p.5, para. 15

Whether the alleged absence of a prima facie connection between the occurrence and an offence under the SC/ST (POA) Act warranted interference with the refusal of bail?

Source reference: p.4, para. 13

Law Applied

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which permits an appeal against an order refusing bail.

Source reference: p.1, para. 2

The Court noted compliance with the limitation requirement under Section 14A(3) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Source reference: p.2, para. 3

The prosecution alleged offences under Sections 103(1), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

Source reference: p.1, para. 2

In deciding bail, the Court applied the established principle that continued pre-trial detention requires prima facie material connecting the accused with the alleged offence, while relevant considerations include the nature of the accusation, the evidentiary material, the stage of investigation, the period of custody and the likelihood of interference with the investigation or evidence.

Source reference: p.5, para. 15

Bail was made subject to the conditions under Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or Section 480(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Source reference: p.5, para. 15

Reasoning

The Court found that the case against the appellant rested, prima facie, on suspicion arising from the alleged confessions of apprehended co-accused persons.

Source reference: p.5, para. 15

It noted that no further incriminating material had emerged during investigation to connect the appellant with the murder, and that the appellant relied on the absence of supporting material in the Call Detail Record.

Source reference: p.3, paras. 8–9

The Court also considered that investigation had been completed, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the appellant had remained in custody since 18 February 2026, thereby reducing the concern regarding interference with the investigation or evidence.

Source reference: p.4, para. 11; p.5, para. 15

Although the appellant argued that the SC/ST Act provisions were inapplicable because the alleged motive arose from a love-affair dispute rather than caste-based atrocity, the Court granted bail principally on the insufficiency of prima facie material and the completion of investigation, without finally adjudicating the applicability of those provisions.

Source reference: p.4, para. 13; p.5, para. 15

Holding

The Court held that, apart from the alleged confessional statements of the co-accused, the record did not disclose sufficient incriminating material prima facie connecting the appellant with the murder.

The appeal was allowed, and the order dated 28 July 2026 refusing bail was set aside.

Source reference: p.6, paras. 16–17

The appellant was directed to be released on bail in Khodawandpur P.S. Case No. 9 of 2026 upon furnishing a bail bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties of the like amount each, subject to the statutory conditions under Section 437(3) CrPC/Section 480(3) BNSS.

Source reference: p.5, para. 15