Bail granted where prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence and co-accused’s memorandum after five-year delay.

The prosecution alleges that between November 6 and November 8, 2020, the applicant, acting in conspiracy with co-accused persons, murdered the deceased, Bhukhal Rohidas, by administering poison and subsequently setting the body on fire using petrol to destroy evidence

The incident occurred within the jurisdiction of Police Station Baloda

Although the incident took place in 2020, the applicant was not arrested until August 23, 2025

The prosecution’s case is built on circumstantial evidence, a memorandum statement from a co-accused, and the recovery of a motorcycle from the applicant

The applicant filed this First Bail Application after the charge-sheet was filed, asserting false implication and highlighting that the independent seizure witness (PW-1) did not support the prosecution’s case

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), 2023, considering the circumstantial nature of the evidence and the five-year delay in arrest

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail

Evidentiary standards for circumstantial evidence and the reliability of recoveries made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act when independent witnesses turn hostile

Sections 302 (murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), 120(B) (criminal conspiracy), and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

The Court observed that the prosecution’s case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence

It noted significant weaknesses in the chain of circumstances, specifically that the applicant’s name surfaced only five years after the alleged crime based solely on the memorandum statement of a co-accused

The Court emphasized that the only physical recovery attributed to the applicant was a motorcycle, which, in the absence of other cogent or direct evidence, was insufficient to establish a prima facie connection to the murder

The Court took cognizance of the applicant’s argument that the independent seizure witness (PW-1) had turned hostile and that the identification of the deceased was questionable

Given that the trial was expected to take considerable time and the applicant had been in custody since August 2025, the Court found the nature of the evidence and the role attributed to the applicant justified the grant of bail

The Court held that the reliance on a delayed memorandum statement and the lack of direct evidence warranted the applicant's release

The grant of bail was made subject to several conditions: the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must appear personally for key trial stages (framing of charges, recording of statements under Section 351 B.N.S.S.), and must not involve himself in similar offences in the future