Grant of bail for HIV-positive accused held on uncorroborated memorandum statements and medical grounds.

The applicant, Raju Sonkar, was arrested on 23.02.2026 in connection with Crime No. 241/2026 for allegedly providing information on a target’s movements and facilitating the stay of co-accused persons who conspired to commit murder and robbery

The prosecution's case was built primarily on the memorandum statements of co-accused persons recorded during the investigation

The applicant moved the High Court for regular bail, contending that he was falsely implicated due to a prior property dispute with the complainant over an illegal road obstruction

The applicant asserted that he has been HIV positive since 2019 and requires specialized medical care unavailable in prison

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS given that his implication is based solely on memorandum statements without corroborative evidence or recovery

2. Whether the applicant's medical status as an HIV-positive patient warrants a humanitarian approach for the grant of bail

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail

The Court considered the evidentiary value of memorandum statements (disclosure statements) of co-accused persons, noting they are generally inadmissible except to a limited extent under law

The Court also relied on judicial precedents, specifically Raju Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh (MCRC No. 2290/2025) and Mohammad Ismail Ansari v. State of Chhattisgarh (MCRC No. 6383/2025), which established the principle that being HIV-positive serves as a significant humanitarian and medical ground for bail

The Court observed that the applicant’s name did not appear in the First Information Report (FIR) and that no incriminating material or weapons were recovered from his possession

The Court noted that the allegation of sharing information was unsubstantiated by independent evidence and was based on hearsay

Crucially, the Court verified the applicant’s HIV-positive status through State authorities and determined that prolonged incarceration would endanger his health due to the lack of specialized medical supervision in jail

Regarding criminal history, the Court found that although the applicant had four prior antecedents, he had been acquitted in all cases, thereby mitigating the "habitual offender" argument raised by the State

The Court held that the lack of direct evidence, coupled with the verified medical condition (HIV-positive status), entitled the applicant to relief

The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions including mandatory attendance at trial dates and a prohibition against seeking unnecessary adjournments