Disclosure Statement of Co-Accused Without Independent Corroborative Evidence is Insufficient to Sustain Pre-Trial Detention

The petitioner sought regular bail in connection with FIR No. 179/2024 (PS Jafrabad) involving charges under Sections 302/120B/201/34 of the IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act

The prosecution alleged that three assailants murdered one Nazim under the instructions of the petitioner, who was purportedly acting for a jailed gangster

The police arrested the assailants based on CCTV and secret information; during custody, the assailants claimed the petitioner supplied the weapons and mobile phones and provided shelter

The petitioner has been incarcerated since May 28, 2024, while the prosecution opposed bail citing the gravity of the offense and initial absconding

1. Whether the disclosure statements made by co-accused while in police custody constitute sufficient evidence to deny regular bail to the petitioner.

2. Whether the gravity of the alleged offense outweighs the lack of admissible evidence connecting the petitioner to the crime for the purpose of granting bail.

The court assessed the application under the general principles governing regular bail for serious offenses under the Indian Penal Code, specifically Section 302 (Murder).

It relied on the evidentiary principle that disclosure statements made by co-accused while in police custody are generally inadmissible as substantive evidence against another accused

The court also applied the principle that while the "gravity of the offence" is a vital factor in bail adjudication, it must be balanced against the quality of material collected during investigation to connect the specific applicant to the crime

The court observed that the primary evidence against the petitioner consisted solely of the disclosure statements of the co-accused recorded in police custody

Regarding the prosecution's claim that the petitioner "pointed out" a house where the assailants hid, the court noted this did not constitute a "discovery of a new fact" because the Investigating Officer was already aware of the location via the assailants' disclosures

Furthermore, there was no material evidence to prove the existence or destruction of the mobile phones allegedly handled by the petitioner

The court reasoned that although the offense was grave, the lack of legally admissible material to connect the petitioner to the crime made continued incarceration an unjustified deprivation of liberty

The bail application was allowed, and the petitioner was directed to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety; the court further directed that the petitioner must not contact any prosecution witnesses