Bail may be granted where complicity is alleged solely through co-accused statements without corroborating material.

The applicant filed his first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, following his arrest on January 17, 2026.

The prosecution alleged that on August 28, 2025, co-accused Teetu Raikwar and others assaulted one Harsh Vardhan Rao with a knife and firearm.

The victim suspected the applicant, Monu Yadav, of organizing the assault due to a prior dispute.

Statements from co-accused in police custody alleged the applicant hired them for Rs. 2 Lakhs to kill the complainant.

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated solely on these statements, noting that no money trail or Call Detail Records (CDR) were produced in the final report.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the nature of the evidence and the principle of parity with co-accused.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, governing the grant of bail.

Sections 333 (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant), 109 (Abetment), 3(5) (Joint liability), and 61(2) (Criminal conspiracy) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, alongside Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The principles of judicial custody, the absence of incriminating material beyond co-accused statements, and the socio-economic status of the applicant to determine the likelihood of recidivism or tampering with evidence.

The Court observed that the primary evidence linking the applicant to the conspiracy was the information provided by co-accused while in police custody.

It noted that the investigation was complete and the final report (charge sheet) had been submitted, yet no physical evidence such as a money trail or CDR was filed to substantiate the conspiracy.

The Court highlighted that other co-accused, including Arvind, Sahil, and Anand Raikwar, had already been granted bail.

While the State opposed bail citing six criminal antecedents, the applicant clarified that he had been acquitted in five of those six cases.

The Court reasoned that continued incarceration was unnecessary as the applicant, a 45-year-old businessman, had deep family roots and there was no evidence suggesting he would flee justice, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses.

The Court allowed the application and directed that the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety.

The bail is subject to conditions including regular court attendance, refraining from committing similar offences, and not tampering with evidence or witnesses.