Bail granted where contract-killing allegations rested solely on an uncorroborated co-accused memorandum.

The three applicants—Ajay Singh Rajput, Paragraj Singh Rajput and Paleshwar Singh Rajput—filed their first applications for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) in connection with Crime No. 40/2026 registered at Police Station Lalpur, District Mungeli, for offences under Sections 61(2), 103(1), 140(2) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that Damodar Singh Rajput was murdered on 21 March 2026 pursuant to a contract-killing conspiracy. A missing-person report was lodged by his brother on 22 March 2026. Co-accused Sanjay Yadav was arrested on 30 March 2026, and his memorandum statement allegedly implicated other accused persons, including the present applicants, in the conspiracy and murder. The investigation was completed and the charge-sheet was filed before the competent court.

The applicants contended that they had been implicated solely on the basis of a co-accused’s memorandum statement; that there was no eyewitness, specific overt act, incriminating recovery, or material establishing their presence with Sanjay Yadav; and that they had no criminal antecedents.

The State opposed bail, relying on the alleged contract-killing conspiracy, CCTV footage, seizure of money and other articles from Sanjay Yadav, and the material contained in the charge-sheet.

1. Whether the applicants were entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS despite allegations of conspiracy and murder under Sections 61(2) and 103(1) of the BNS?

2. Whether the material in the charge-sheet—including the co-accused’s memorandum statement, call-detail records and other circumstances—prima facie established the applicants’ involvement in the alleged contract killing?

3. Whether continued detention was justified when the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicants had remained in custody since 30 March 2026, and charges had not yet been framed?

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court or Court of Session to grant regular bail, subject to appropriate conditions. The alleged offences were under Sections 61(2), 103(1), 140(2) and 238 of the BNS, concerning criminal conspiracy, murder and related offences.

In assessing a contract-killing allegation, the Court held that the prosecution must establish a complete and reliable chain of circumstantial evidence, including the conspiracy, meeting of minds between the alleged mastermind and hitman, common intention, subsequent conduct and surrounding circumstances.

It further observed that allegations of a financial transaction should ordinarily be supported by material such as bank trails, call-detail records and tower locations, and that discoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act should be corroborated by independent evidence.

Bail was also considered in light of the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicants’ period of custody, the absence of specific material against them and the fact that charges had not been framed.

The Court found that, although the prosecution alleged a contract-killing conspiracy, the material did not establish that the applicants and Sanjay Yadav were together during the relevant period or that they participated in the murder.

The applicants had been arrested on the basis of Sanjay Yadav’s memorandum statement; however, neither that statement nor the statements recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS contained a specific allegation or material demonstrating their involvement in the murder.

No incriminating article had been seized from the applicants, and the available call-detail records did not connect them with Sanjay Yadav in relation to the crime.

In the absence of corroborative evidence completing the circumstantial chain described in paragraph 7, and considering that the charge-sheet had already been filed, the applicants had remained in custody since 30 March 2026, and charges were yet to be framed, the Court held that continued incarceration was not warranted at the bail stage.

The applicants were directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

The applicants were directed not to induce, threaten or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case; not to prejudice a fair and expeditious trial; and to appear before the trial Court on every date fixed until conclusion of the trial.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial Court for compliance.