Bail granted where delayed eyewitness accounts and recovery evidence were prima facie doubtful and uncorroborated.

An FIR dated 25 November 2025 was registered against unknown persons under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), corresponding to Section 302 IPC, concerning the murder of the informant’s husband.

The deceased had left for his agricultural field and the market on 24 November 2025 and was subsequently found dead in a teak-tree garden the following morning.

The applicant, Suraj Gautam, was not named in the FIR.

During investigation, co-accused Chandan was allegedly implicated on the basis of a witness statement concerning his illicit relationship with the deceased’s wife.

The applicant was arrested along with Chandan, and his name allegedly surfaced for the first time in Chandan’s confessional statement.

The prosecution further alleged recovery of a gamcha at the pointing out of Chandan and the applicant, without independent recovery witnesses.

He had no criminal history and had remained in custody since 28 November 2025.

1. Whether the applicant, who was not named in the FIR and whose involvement allegedly emerged from the confessional statement of a co-accused, was entitled to release on bail?

2. Whether the alleged recovery, delayed eyewitness statements, and other circumstances constituted sufficient prima facie material to deny bail?

The Court applied the provisions of Section 103(1) BNS, corresponding to Section 302 IPC, relating to the offence of murder, along with Sections 61(2Ka), 238 and 315 BNS, corresponding respectively to Sections 120-B, 201 and 404 IPC, as invoked in the case.

The Court applied the settled principle governing bail that, at the pre-trial stage, the court must assess whether a prima facie case exists, while considering the nature of the accusations, the credibility and consistency of the prosecution material, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the period of custody, and the possibility of interference with the trial.

The Court also treated the absence of independent witnesses to the alleged recovery, the doubtful evidentiary value of a co-accused’s confession, and material inconsistencies in the prosecution version as relevant considerations at the bail stage.

The Court found that the FIR was lodged against unknown persons and that the applicant was not named therein.

His alleged involvement surfaced only after the arrest of Chandan and through Chandan’s purported confession, followed by an alleged confession by the applicant.

The Court further noted that the gamcha recovery was not supported by any independent witness.

The subsequently introduced eyewitnesses allegedly stated that the deceased, Chandan and the applicant were travelling on a motorcycle, whereas the deceased’s bicycle was recovered at the place of occurrence; this inconsistency rendered their statements doubtful at the prima facie stage.

The absence of call-detail evidence linking the applicant with the informant or Chandan, together with the applicant’s lack of criminal history and custody since 28 November 2025, supported the conclusion that the applicant had made out a case for bail.

Suraj Gautam was directed to be released in Case Crime No. 225 of 2025 upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to conditions requiring cooperation with the prosecution, non-tampering with evidence, non-intimidation of witnesses, regular appearance, and compliance with the trial court’s directions, including personal appearance for recording of the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

The Court clarified that any observations made for deciding bail would not affect the merits of the trial.