Bail may be granted where Investigating Officer proposes discharge of accused for lack of evidence.

The applicant, Banwari Gupta, filed his first regular bail application following his arrest on February 20, 2026.

The prosecution alleged that on February 19, 2026, a mob of 25-30 unidentified persons entered the complainant Sabeena Khan’s house, committed arson, and damaged property.

The applicant was initially arrested based on CCTV footage and witness statements.

The applicant contended that the FIR was a "counterblast" to a prior report filed by his party regarding an incident at a temple.

The Investigating Officer, upon verifying video clips and supplementary statements, opined that the involvement of the applicant and several others was not made out, proposing their discharge in the final report.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the Investigating Officer’s proposal for discharge.

2. Whether the applicant's continued incarceration is necessary despite the completion of the investigation and lack of evidence for complicity.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.), governing the High Court's power to grant regular bail.

Sections 333, 326(G), 296(B), 191(2), 191(3), and 324(4) of the BNS, 2023.

The decision was guided by established bail principles, including the gravity of the offense, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, and the potential for tampering with evidence or recidivism.

The Court observed that while the State opposed bail due to the gravity of the offense and the applicant's two criminal antecedents, the material evidence significantly weakened the prosecution's case against the applicant.

The Court noted the Investigating Officer's specific finding that the applicant's involvement was "not made out" after verifying supplementary statements and video evidence.

It was highlighted that a final report had already been submitted, and the trial was expected to take considerable time.

Given the applicant's socio-economic status and the lack of prima facie evidence for his complicity, the Court found no compelling reason to justify continued incarceration or any substantial risk of the applicant tampering with evidence or fleeing.

The Court allowed the application and directed that the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the same amount subject to conditions including regular attendance at trial, non-interference with witnesses, and compliance with Section 346 of the BNSS regarding the examination of witnesses.