Bail granted where post-mortem showed drowning without injuries and co-accused were already released.

Priyanka, the petitioner’s wife, was found dead in a water tank.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and accused Nos. 2–6 had ill-treated and assaulted her and that the petitioner, with their assistance, pushed her into the tank.

The post-mortem report recorded asphyxia due to drowning and disclosed no internal or external injuries.

The petitioner, accused No. 1, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case registered under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 85, 61, 103(2) and 80 read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The charge-sheet had been filed, and accused Nos. 2–6 had been granted bail.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, having regard to the charge-sheet material and the circumstances of the alleged death.

2. Whether parity with accused Nos. 2–6, who had been granted bail, supported the petitioner’s release.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was the statutory basis for the application for regular bail.

The alleged offences were those specified under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The Court assessed the prima facie material, the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, and the grant of bail to co-accused; it stated that whether the death resulted from murder or drowning was a matter for trial.

The Court noted that the prosecution witnesses alleged that the petitioner and the co-accused had pushed Priyanka into the water tank, but the post-mortem report identified drowning as the cause of death and recorded no injuries.

It considered the competing accounts—murder by drowning and drowning itself—to be matters for trial, limiting its assessment to the prima facie case.

Given that the investigation was complete, the charge-sheet had been filed, and accused Nos. 2–6 had been granted bail, the Court held that the petitioner could be released subject to conditions.

Conditions included a personal bond of ₹2,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum, non-interference with prosecution witnesses, cooperation with the Investigating Officer, refraining from similar offences, and fortnightly attendance at the police station for six months or until the final report was filed, whichever was earlier.

The prosecution may seek cancellation of bail if the conditions are violated.