Bail granted where conviction rests on circumstantial evidence and clear involvement in murder is not established.

The Appellant, Rajendra Kumar Sahu, is the brother of Rajkumar Sahu (main accused), whose daughter is the Village Sarpanch. The deceased, Mahendra Baghel, was the Deputy Sarpanch and often opposed the main accused’s alleged misuse of his daughter's authority, leading to enmity

On 06/09/2025, the deceased was called to the main accused’s house and never returned; his body was later recovered. An FIR was lodged on 08/09/2025 against eight individuals

The Appellant was arrested on 09/09/2025. The Trial Court (Special Judge, Janjgir) rejected the Appellant's regular bail application on 20/01/2025, which is challenged in this appeal

1. Whether the Appellant is entitled to the grant of regular bail considering the circumstantial nature of the evidence and his period of incarceration

2. Whether the Trial Court erred in law by rejecting the bail application despite the lack of direct evidence linking the Appellant to the act of murder

The Court primarily applied Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, regarding appeals against bail orders

It further considered Sections 103(2) (Punishment for murder), 61(2)(a) (Criminal conspiracy), and 238 (Causing disappearance of evidence) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Section 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST Act

The court relied on the established principle that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the strength of the "last seen" theory and the specific role of the accused must be weighed against the right to liberty during trial

The Court examined the prosecution's case, noting that the evidence against the Appellant is entirely circumstantial, based primarily on the recovery of a mobile phone and his presence at the scene, rather than direct participation in the killing

The Court observed that while the main accused had a clear motive and summoned the deceased, the statements of witnesses Antim Tyagi and Manmohan Baghel did not establish that the Appellant was the "last seen" with the deceased

The Court noted that the investigation is complete, the charge sheet has been filed, and out of 31 witnesses, only three have been examined, indicating that the trial will take considerable time

The Court found that continued detention was not justified as the Appellant's specific involvement in the homicide was not prima facie reflected in the record

The Court ordered the release of Rajendra Kumar Sahu on his furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the condition of regular appearance during the trial