Husband absent from the crime scene granted bail where co-accused already secured bail.

The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in connection with Kujang P.S. Case No. 258 of 2025, corresponding to C.T. Case No. 114 of 2025 and G.R. Case No. 640 of 2025.

He had been charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 85, 108, 103(1), 316(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), relating to the alleged murder of his wife by subjecting her to cruelty and torture, dishonest misappropriation of dowry articles, and acting in furtherance of common intention with co-accused persons.

The petitioner contended that he was not present at the scene of occurrence and that his alleged role was limited to instigating the co-accused.

His parents-in-law and brother-in-law, who were allegedly present at the scene, had already been granted bail, and those orders had not been challenged by the informant.

The charge sheet had been submitted while the petitioner remained in pre-trial detention.

Whether the petitioner, who was not present at the scene of occurrence and whose co-accused had already been granted bail, was entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS.

Whether the materials on record disclosed a sufficient risk that the petitioner would abscond or threaten or influence prosecution witnesses if released on bail.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant bail in cases involving an accused in custody.

The alleged substantive offences were under Sections 85, 108, 103(1), 316(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, concerning cruelty, abetment, murder, dishonest misappropriation and common intention, respectively.

In determining bail, the Court considered the petitioner’s alleged role, his non-presence at the scene, the grant of bail to similarly placed co-accused, the filing of the charge sheet, the period of pre-trial custody, and the absence of material indicating a likelihood of absconding or threatening witnesses.

The Court found no dispute that the petitioner’s parents-in-law and brother-in-law had already been granted bail and that the informant had not challenged those orders.

It further noted that the petitioner was not present at the scene of occurrence, whereas the co-accused alleged to have been present had been released on bail.

The principal allegation concerning procurement of poison was directed against the father-in-law, and the Court found no material indicating that the petitioner would abscond or pose a threat to witnesses.

Considering these circumstances, together with the petitioner’s pre-trial detention and the filing of the charge sheet, the Court held that the petitioner could be released on bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

Kartika Samal be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000, with two solvent sureties for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court in seisin of the case, subject to such terms and conditions as that court might impose.

The BLAPL was accordingly disposed of, and directions were issued for communication of the order to the concerned court and jail authorities.