Inconsistency between accused’s injuries and mastermind role warrants bail despite serious murder charges.

On June 8, 2023, a robbery occurred at the residence of Mohd. Abbas Malik, resulting in the murder of his wife, Shamim, and injuries to the complainant

The applicant, Zahid, a nephew of the deceased residing on the first floor of the same premises, was initially named in the FIR as an injured victim

However, subsequent investigation led the prosecution to allege that the applicant acted as an "insider" who facilitated the entry of co-accused persons and feigned unconsciousness to evade suspicion

The prosecution relied on Call Detail Record (CDR) analysis showing contact with co-accused and the recovery of clothes consistent with CCTV footage

The applicant sought regular bail, contending that he suffered genuine injuries (supported by an MLC allegedly suppressed by the prosecution), had no recovery of stolen articles from his person, and had been in custody for two years and nine months with clean antecedents

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of the nature of the evidence and the duration of his incarceration

2. Whether the prosecution's theory of a "staged" injury is sufficient to deny bail when the applicant's Medico-Legal Case (MLC) records serious injuries

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) regarding the discretionary power of the High Court to grant bail

The substantive charges involved Sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 394 (voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

The court also considered the principle that continued deprivation of liberty pending trial must be justified by the strength of the prima facie case and the necessity of detention

The court observed that while the prosecution characterized the incident as a premeditated conspiracy, several factors favored the applicant. First, the applicant was initially treated as a victim, and his MLC—which the prosecution omitted from the chargesheet—confirmed he sustained serious injuries that hindered his speech

The court noted that sustaining such injuries does not naturally align with a central role in a conspiracy

Second, the court found that the prima facie evidence, such as CDRs and clothing, could be explained by the applicant’s residence in the same house and his prior business dealings with the co-accused

Third, the court highlighted that the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, and material witnesses had been examined, reducing the risk of tampering

Finally, the applicant’s clean antecedents and nearly three-year period of custody rendered continued detention unjustified

It held that the veracity of the "staged" injury theory was a matter for trial and that the material on record did not warrant continued pre-trial Balik

The applicant was ordered to be released on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety, subject to conditions including appearing at all hearings, not contacting witnesses, and not leaving the country without permission