Incriminating statements of co-accused in police custody lack evidentiary value for denying bail under BNSS.

The applicant, Lakhan Soni, was arrested on January 24, 2026, in connection with a fatal motor vehicle accident involving a Nissan Magnite that ran over laborers at a road construction site, resulting in five deaths and eleven injuries.

The prosecution alleged the applicant was driving the vehicle based solely on the incriminating statements of the applicant and the co-accused, Deepak Soni (the vehicle owner).

The applicant filed this first bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, asserting false implication and a lack of admissible evidence.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the nature of the evidence and the progress of the trial?

2. Whether the continued judicial incarceration of the applicant is warranted in light of his clean criminal record and the alleged lapses in the police investigation?

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Section 439 Cr.P.C.), governing the High Court's power to grant bail.

The principle that statements made to the police by an accused or co-accused while in custody are generally inadmissible as substantive evidence.

Sections 281 (rash driving), 125(a) (causing hurt by endangering life), 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), and 110 (attempt to commit culpable homicide) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The Court observed that the prosecution’s case against the applicant rested primarily on the disclosure statement of a co-accused, which lacks evidentiary value at this stage.

Critically, the Court noted that the Investigating Officer failed to record the statement of a key witness (Vedika) who was reportedly in the vehicle, and no eyewitness identified the applicant as the driver. The Court characterized the investigation as "casual" regarding such a horrific incident.

Since the charge sheet (final report) had already been filed and the applicant has no prior criminal antecedents, the Court determined there was no immediate risk of recidivism, tampering with evidence, or fleeing from justice. The young age of the applicant and the anticipated duration of the trial were also weighed in favor of release.

The applicant was ordered to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one solvent surety of the same amount, subject to conditions including regular court attendance, refraining from similar offences, and non-interference with witnesses. The order remains effective until the conclusion of the trial unless bail conditions are breached.