Electronic Evidence Corroborating Common Intention in Brutal Homicidal Assault Precludes Grant of Bail

The applicant, Ashok Kumar, sought bail following his arrest on July 16, 2024, in connection with the murder of Gaurav Jha

The prosecution alleged that on July 12, 2024, the applicant and two co-accused brutally assaulted, sodomized, and strangulated the victim with a plastic wire before discarding the body in nearby bushes

The applicant’s counsel argued for bail on the grounds that the applicant was not named in the FIR, there were no eyewitnesses, no recovery of scientific evidence linking him to the scene, and a three-day delay in lodging the FIR

Conversely, the State presented video evidence recovered from a co-accused’s phone showing the applicant’s active participation in the assault

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) given the nature of the evidence and the gravity of the offence

2. Whether the absence of the applicant's name in the FIR and the delay in lodging the FIR are sufficient grounds to grant bail despite incriminating electronic evidence

The court primarily applied Section 103(1) (Murder), Section 238 (Causing disappearance of evidence), and Section 3(5) (Common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The court also exercised its discretionary powers under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

It applied the doctrine of "Common Intention," noting that under Section 3(5) BNS, each co-accused need not commit every individual act of the offence to be held liable

Furthermore, the court considered the balance between individual liberty and the "collective conscience of civilized society" in cases of extreme depravity

The court reasoned that while the applicant was not named in the FIR, overwhelming electronic evidence—specifically nine video clips verified by the Forensic Science Laboratory—placed him at the crime scene and documented his active participation in the assault

The court found that the applicant’s conduct reflected "extreme perversity," as he allegedly held the victim down during acts of sexual violence and murder while the incident was recorded

Regarding the three-day delay in the FIR, the court determined this was not fatal given that the body was recovered based on information from the accused and the incident occurred at night

The court emphasized that the documentation of human suffering for "perverse gratification" underscored a level of depravity that outweighed the applicant's plea for bail

Consequently, the bail application was rejected, and the applicant was ordered to remain in custody