Entitlement to bail in communal violence cases where name is omitted from FIR and CCTV evidence is unverified.

The applicant sought his first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, following his arrest on February 20, 2026

The prosecution alleged that on February 19, 2026, a crowd emerged from a mosque and attacked persons performing aarti at a temple in Sihora, Jabalpur, involving stone-pelting and communal violence

While the applicant was not named in the FIR, his complicity was later alleged based on statements and CCTV footage purportedly showing him pelting stones

The applicant, a 26-year-old mechanic with no criminal antecedents, contended he was falsely implicated based on suspicion and that no CCTV panchnama was included in the final report

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail considering the nature of the accusations, his period of incarceration, and the lack of criminal antecedents

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

The court considered the principles of bail jurisprudence, focusing on the lack of criminal antecedents, the socio-economic status of the applicant to determine flight risk, and the likelihood of recidivism or tampering with evidence

Sections 190, 191, 296(B), 115(2), 298, 324(2), 299, 125, and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The Court observed that while the State opposed bail due to the gravity of the communal violence, it admitted that the applicant had no prior criminal record

The Court noted that the applicant's name was absent from the initial FIR and his alleged involvement surfaced only later via a witness statement regarding CCTV footage

Crucially, the Court found that the victims sustained only "simple injuries" and that the investigation was complete with a final report submitted

The Court reasoned that given the applicant’s family roots and socio-economic status, there was no compelling evidence suggesting he would flee justice, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses

It emphasized that the veracity of the applicant's complicity is a matter for trial and that continued pre-trial incarceration was not warranted under the circumstances

The Court held that the applicant be released on a personal bond of Rs. 75,000/- with one surety of the same amount subject to several conditions, including regular attendance at trial, a prohibition against committing similar offences, and a strict injunction against tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses