Bail Granted Where Sole Evidence is CCTV Footage Lacking Clarity and Failing to Establish Identity or Connection.

The accused/applicant was arrested on August 5, 2025, in connection with FIR No. 243/2024 (PS C.R. Park) for allegedly conspiring with others to commit theft in a residence

The prosecution alleged that a co-accused gained entry as a domestic help, after which the group stole cash and articles; the applicant was purportedly identified via CCTV footage carrying a bag near the scene

The applicant sought regular bail on grounds of innocence and parity with co-accused persons, Jagbandhu Malik and Sanjay Malik, who had already been granted bail by the High Court

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail based on the principle of parity and the nature of evidence collected during the investigation

Whether the CCTV footage provided by the prosecution constitutes sufficient "cogent evidence" to justify continued incarceration

The Court considered the principles governing regular bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), specifically regarding the weight of circumstantial evidence and the doctrine of parity

While the FIR cited Section 306/3(5) of the BNS, the court focused on the evidentiary threshold required for continued detention, highlighting that where the only evidence is unreliable digital footage and co-accused with identical roles have been released, the applicant’s right to liberty outweighs the prosecution’s opposition

The Court found that the sole evidence against the applicant was CCTV footage, which the Investigating Officer admitted was actually a mobile phone recording taken of a monitor

Upon review, the Court noted that the footage was of poor quality, failed to depict the faces of the accused, and merely showed individuals carrying bags in a public street without a clear nexus to the crime

The Court criticized the "unusually lengthy" status report, characterizing it as an "appeal" against previous bail orders rather than a justification for detention

Applying the principle of parity, the Court observed that the analysis used to grant bail to the co-accused—specifically regarding the failure of the CCTV footage to "inspire confidence"—applied equally to the current applicant

The bail application was allowed.

The Court directed the applicant's release on a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court

The Court clarified that the observations made in the bail order would not prejudice the final trial