Bail granted where DNA evidence disproves identity of recovered body and parity with co-accused is established.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail based on the principle of parity and the lack of conclusive evidence linking the recovered body to the missing victim

The court held

The Court answered the issues in the affirmative, holding that the scientific evidence and parity constituted a fit case for bail

It also directed

The Bail Application was allowed. The Court ordered the release of Ramesh Ram upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned court, while clarifying that these observations are limited to the bail proceedings and do not reflect on the merits of the trial

01Facts

The applicant, Ramesh Ram, was arrested on 11.12.2025 in connection with FIR No. 01 of 2025 regarding the alleged kidnapping and murder of Ms. Sunita Devi

¶ 4, 5

The prosecution alleged that the victim was kidnapped, but the FIR was registered with an 18-day delay

¶ 7

A dead body was recovered from Tanakpur, over 200 kilometers from the incident site, which the prosecution claimed was the victim

¶ 10

The applicant sought bail on grounds of parity, lack of independent witnesses, and scientific evidence contradicting the victim's identity

¶ 6, 9, 12

02Issues

i.1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail based on the principle of parity and the lack of conclusive evidence linking the recovered body to the missing victim

¶ 15, 17

ii.2. Whether the scientific (DNA) evidence on record sufficiently undermines the prosecution's case to warrant the release of the applicant pending trial

¶ 18, 20

03Law Applied

The Court considered the criteria for bail under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, specifically involving Sections 87 (Kidnapping), 140(1) (Murder), and 3(5) (Common Intention)

¶ 4

It applied the principle of Parity, which mandates that similarly situated co-accused granted bail should be treated equally unless distinguishing circumstances exist

¶ 9, 17

Furthermore, it relied on the weight of Scientific/Forensic Evidence over circumstantial claims in establishing a prima facie case for bail

¶ 18, 20

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 87 Section 140 Section 3

04Reasoning

The Court observed that the prosecution’s case was significantly weakened by a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) DNA report, which concluded that the dead body recovered was that of a "MALE," whereas the missing person was a "FEMALE"

¶ 12, 16

This discrepancy created a substantial doubt regarding the corpus delicti and the reliability of the prosecution's theory

¶ 19

The Court further reasoned that since two co-accused persons had already been granted bail and the State could not point to any distinguishing role or circumstance for the present applicant, the benefit of parity must be extended

¶ 14, 17

Additionally, the lack of a post-mortem report and the collective (non-specific) nature of the recovery of belongings further diluted the evidence against the applicant at this stage

¶ 8, 11