Dying Declaration Naming Accused and Prior Criminal Antecedents Preclude Grant of Bail in Murder Conspiracy Case

The applicant sought regular bail in connection with FIR No. 121/2025 registered under Sections 103(1)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

On March 10, 2025, the deceased (Rohit) was shot while traveling on a scooter

Before succumbing to his injuries at the hospital, the deceased allegedly made an oral dying declaration to the complainant naming the applicant and others as participants in the conspiracy and attack

The applicant argued he was not at the scene, the dying declaration was unreliable due to the nature of the injuries, and his arrest was a result of a predetermined "frame-up"

The prosecution opposed bail, citing the applicant’s prior criminal antecedents and evidence of conspiracy found in Call Detail Records (CDR)

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in light of the allegations of conspiracy and the oral dying declaration?

2. Whether an oral dying declaration made to a witness, without medical certification of fitness or a Magistrate's presence, is sufficient to deny bail at the prima facie stage?

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) regarding bail

Section 26 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) regarding dying declarations

The precedent Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, which established that a dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction and does not strictly require recording by a Magistrate or a doctor's certificate if the court is satisfied the deceased was in a fit state of mind

The court also considered the principles for bail adjudication, emphasizing that the court should not conduct a "mini-trial" but must assess the nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, and the applicant's criminal antecedents

The Court found that at the stage of bail, the veracity of evidence cannot be tried, and the court must only look for reasonable grounds of involvement

While the applicant argued he was not physically present, the court held that his role as a "key conspirator" made his presence at the scene irrelevant

The Court dismissed the challenge to the dying declaration’s validity, noting that under the Laxman precedent, the lack of a medical certificate or Magistrate does not prima facie invalidate the statement naming the applicant

Furthermore, the CDR analysis showed connectivity between the applicant and co-accused, supporting a prima facie inference of conspiracy

The court also weighed the applicant's "Unsatisfactory" jail conduct and seven criminal antecedents, which raised a reasonable apprehension of witness tampering or recidivism if released

It held that the explicit naming of the applicant in the dying declaration, the CDR links, and the applicant’s criminal history outweighed the arguments for release

The Court ordered that these observations are limited to the bail proceedings and shall not influence the trial on merits