Grant of Bail Where Prosecution Story Lacks Medical Evidence and Corroborative CCTV Footage of Alleged Abduction.

The applicant, Arpit, sought regular bail regarding F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0496 of 2025.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and co-accused assaulted the complainant’s son at Crystal World Amusement Park, forcibly abducted him in a car, and later abandoned him near a petrol pump at Dandheri.

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated based solely on statements of co-accused, noting that CCTV footage showed no assault or abduction, no injuries were sustained by the victim, and no incriminating items were recovered from his possession.

The applicant has been in custody since November 15, 2025, and the charge-sheet has already been filed.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail considering the nature of accusations, lack of physical evidence, and the stage of the investigation.

The Court considered the provisions of Sections 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 352 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), 3(5) (common intention), and 140(2)(4) (kidnapping or abducting) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.).

It further referenced the procedural recording of witness statements under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.).

The decision was guided by established bail jurisprudence, which balances the nature of the accusation, the period of incarceration, the risk of tampering with evidence, and the status of the investigation (filing of the charge-sheet).

The Court evaluated the inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative, specifically noting that despite allegations of assault and dragging, the CCTV footage from the place of occurrence did not depict any such violence or manhandling.

Crucially, the Court observed the State's admission that the victim sustained no physical injuries, which weakened the prosecution's claim of a violent assault.

Since the charge-sheet has been submitted, the Court reasoned that custodial interrogation was no longer necessary.

The Court also factored in the applicant’s status as a permanent resident, reducing the risk of absconding, and the likelihood that the trial would be prolonged.

By applying the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception in cases where the evidence is primarily circumstantial and the investigation is complete, the Court found the applicant entitled to liberty.

The bail application was allowed, and the Court ordered the release of Arpit on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.