Grant of bail where no incriminating evidence exists beyond memorandum statements and recovery of a motorcycle.

The applicant filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, following the withdrawal of his first application on 02.09.2025.

On 23.03.2025, a body with multiple injuries to the neck and private parts was discovered in an agricultural field alongside a blood-stained spoon.

The applicant was arrested on 26.03.2025 based on a memorandum statement where he allegedly admitted to transporting the victim on a motorcycle to the main accused (a juvenile).

The defense argued that there were no specific allegations of assault against the applicant and that no incriminating evidence existed beyond the memorandum statement.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the nature of the evidence and his period of pre-trial detention.

The court followed the legal principles governing regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 439 CrPC).

It assessed the allegations under Sections 103(1) (punishment for murder), 61(2) (criminal conspiracy), and 238 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with various provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act.

The court balanced the gravity of the offense against the evidentiary value of a memorandum statement and the right to liberty during pre-trial detention.

The court examined the prosecution's case which rested primarily on a memorandum statement recorded under police custody.

It noted the State’s admission that, aside from the memorandum statement and the seizure of a motorcycle, no direct evidence or incriminating articles were recovered from the applicant.

The court weighed the nature of the allegations—specifically that the applicant's role was limited to transporting the victim—against the fact that he had been in custody for over a year.

Finding that the merits of the case warranted a release pending trial, the court determined that the applicant's continued detention was not necessary, provided strict conditions were met to ensure his participation in the trial.

The holding is contingent upon several conditions: the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must appear personally for key trial stages including framing of charges and recording of statements, and faces proceedings under Sections 269 or 209 of the BNS/BNSS should he abscond or misuse his liberty.