Bail is warranted where conspiracy allegations lack independent corroboration beyond statements made by co-accused in custody.

The applicant, Gopal Choudhary, was arrested on May 12, 2024, in connection with the murder of Mishrilal Rathore.

The prosecution alleged that the deceased’s wife, Krishna Bai, and her niece, Maya Bai, conspired with the applicant and another individual, Karan, to commit the murder.

Maya Bai’s statement suggested the applicant was paid an advance of ₹1,00,000 to execute the crime.

Consequently, the police registered Crime No. 117/2024 for offences under Sections 302, 324, 452, 120-B, and 34 of the IPC.

This is the applicant's second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, following the withdrawal of his first application in September 2025.

The applicant contended he was implicated solely based on the statement of a co-accused and that no direct incriminating evidence, such as call records or a money trail, was established during the investigation.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of evidence and the duration of his judicial custody.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC), which governs the special powers of the High Court regarding bail.

The Court considered the penal provisions for murder (Section 302 IPC) and criminal conspiracy (Section 120-B IPC).

The Court also relied on the established judicial principle that bail may be granted when there is a lack of prima facie incriminating material, a low risk of fleeing from justice, and when the trial is likely to be prolonged, thereby impacting the right to liberty.

The Court analyzed the evidentiary weight of the material collected during the investigation and noted that the applicant's implication rested primarily on a co-accused's statement made in police custody.

It observed that while a mobile phone, motorcycle, and ₹45,000 were seized, there was a significant absence of "positive material" such as Call Detail Reports (CDR) or a documented money trail to substantiate the allegation of conspiracy.

The Court further evaluated the progress of the trial, noting that 18 witnesses remained to be examined, indicating the trial would not conclude soon.

Regarding the State’s objection concerning criminal antecedents, the Court found that the applicant had been acquitted in his major previous case and had no substantial criminal record or prior convictions for major offences.

Consequently, the Court determined that continued incarceration was unnecessary as there was no evident risk of the applicant tampering with evidence or fleeing justice given his socio-economic status.

The Court held that in the absence of direct incriminating evidence and considering the delay in the trial, the applicant deserved to be released on bail.

The applicant was ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹75,000 with one surety of the same amount, subject to conditions including regular appearance in court, non-involvement in similar offences, and a prohibition against tampering with evidence or witnesses.

The Court clarified that these observations were limited to the bail application and would not affect the merits of the trial.