Bail granted where only incriminating material was a co-accused’s custodial confession, with parity applying.

The applicant sought regular bail in FIR No. 487/2018 registered at Police Station Bawana for offences under Sections 302 and 120B read with Section 34 IPC, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

On 26.12.2018, an unidentified body was found at Bawana bus stand with a bullet injury. The deceased was declared brought dead, and the FIR was initially registered after the Investigating Officer found no eyewitness at the spot.

During investigation, Bhavik, the deceased Manoj’s son, stated that he had witnessed Ritik shooting his father. After Ritik’s arrest, he allegedly named the applicant as an accomplice, leading to the applicant’s arrest.

The prosecution conceded that, apart from Ritik’s confessional statement made in police custody and the applicant’s refusal to participate in the Test Identification Parade, there was no other evidence connecting the applicant with the offence.

The applicant sought bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Sandeep @ Bunty, who had already been granted bail on 28.04.2025.

The State and the deceased’s family opposed bail, referring to the applicant’s involvement in other cases, alleged gang affiliation, and the deceased’s criminal antecedents.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail where the only material allegedly connecting him to the offence was the custodial confessional statement of a co-accused and his refusal to participate in the TIP.

Whether the applicant should be granted bail on the principle of parity with co-accused Sandeep @ Bunty, who had already been granted bail.

Whether the applicant’s alleged involvement in other criminal cases, gang affiliation, and the deceased’s criminal antecedents justified denial of bail.

The Court considered the offences alleged under Sections 302, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

In deciding bail, the Court assessed whether there was prima facie incriminating material connecting the applicant with the alleged offence and applied the principle that similarly placed co-accused should ordinarily receive parity in bail, absent distinguishing circumstances.

The Court treated the custodial confessional statement of a co-accused as the only material against the applicant and noted the absence of any further corroborative evidence.

No specific judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The Court found that the prosecution’s case against the applicant rested substantially, if not entirely, on Ritik’s confessional statement recorded while Ritik was in police custody.

The State expressly admitted that there was no other evidence against the applicant, except his refusal to join the TIP; it also acknowledged that the co-accused who had already secured bail had similarly refused to participate in the TIP.

Accordingly, the applicant stood on substantially similar footing to Sandeep @ Bunty, supporting the claim of parity.

Although the State relied on the applicant’s involvement in two other cases and the deceased’s family referred to alleged gang rivalry, the Court held that these considerations did not outweigh the absence of independent incriminating evidence in the present case.

The applicant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

The Jail Superintendent was directed to be informed immediately, and the accompanying application was disposed of.