Bail granted where implication relies solely on co-accused’s memorandum statement amidst significant, unexplained delay.

The applicant sought his first bail application following his arrest on August 23, 2025, in connection with an incident alleged to have occurred between November 6 and November 8, 2020.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with co-accused persons, conspired to murder one Bhukhal Rohidas by administering poison and subsequently setting the body on fire with petrol to destroy evidence.

The case against the applicant was registered under Sections 302, 201, 120(B), and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The applicant contended that the case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, that the independent seizure witness (PW-1) turned hostile, and that there was an unexplained five-year delay in his arrest.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.) given the nature of the circumstantial evidence and the procedural delays

The Court considered the provisions of Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), 2023, regarding bail.

It evaluated the evidentiary value of a "memorandum statement" of a co-accused and recoveries made under the principles of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

Additionally, the court applied the general principles of criminal jurisprudence regarding the "chain of circumstances" in cases based on circumstantial evidence and the impact of witness hostility on the likelihood of conviction.

The Court observed that the prosecution’s case against the applicant is based primarily on circumstantial evidence rather than direct testimony.

It noted that the applicant’s name surfaced nearly five years after the incident and his implication was based almost entirely on the memorandum statement of a co-accused.

The Court highlighted that the only physical recovery attributed to the applicant was a motorcycle, which it found insufficient as "cogent or direct evidence" connecting him to the murder.

Furthermore, the Court took cognizance of the fact that the independent witness (PW-1) did not support the prosecution's recovery claims and that the trial was expected to take considerable time, during which the applicant had already been in judicial custody since August 2025.

The applicant was ordered to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of the like amount.

The Court imposed several conditions, including that the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must remain present for all crucial trial stages (framing of charges, recording of statements under Section 351 of BNSS), and warned that any misuse of liberty or involvement in similar future offences would lead to cancellation of bail.