01Facts
The applicant was arrested on 24.04.2024 in connection with Crime No. 319 of 2024 for offences including murder (Section 302 IPC) and violations of the Arms Act.
¶ 2The prosecution alleged that on 22.04.2024, the applicant and co-accused assaulted the deceased, Aryan Tomar, with a knife and fists, resulting in his death.
¶ 4The applicant’s first two bail applications were rejected on 02.04.2025 and 24.09.2025.
¶ 3Subsequently, a police inquiry report dated 04.02.2025 and a supplementary charge-sheet filed on 22.01.2026 indicated that the Investigating Officer (IO) committed serious irregularities, that the applicant was not present at the crime scene, and that memorandum statements were recorded under police pressure.
¶ 5, 9, 10Trial progress was further delayed by the filing of the supplementary charge-sheet against a co-accused, necessitating a restart of certain trial proceedings.
¶ 5, 1202Issues
i.1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail based on new evidence from internal police inquiries and a supplementary charge-sheet suggesting non-involvement, despite previous rejections and criminal antecedents.
¶ 5, 12ii.2. Whether the potential delay in the conclusion of the trial due to the filing of a supplementary charge-sheet serves as a valid ground for granting bail.
¶ 1203Law Applied
The court primarily considered Sections 302, 294, 506, 323, and 34 of the IPC, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
¶ 2The court applied the principle from Prabhakar Tewari v. State of UP and another (2020) 11 SCC 648, which establishes that criminal antecedents cannot be the sole basis for rejecting a bail application.
¶ 12The court also referenced Pappu @ Rajaram v. State of MP (MCRC-15398 of 2022) regarding the weight of past criminal history in bail adjudications.
¶ 12Provisions in the judgment · 8 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 34Section 294Section 302Section 323Section 506
Arms Act, 1959 Section 25Section 27
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 161
04Reasoning
The court observed a significant shift in circumstances following the rejection of the previous bail applications.
¶ 9It noted that the Additional Superintendent of Police’s inquiry report dated 04.02.2025 explicitly found that the applicant was not present at the spot and that the IO had fabricated evidence.
¶ 9Several witnesses, including injured persons, consistently stated the applicant was not involved.
¶ 10The court highlighted that the supplementary charge-sheet filed by the police themselves admitted a lack of evidence against the applicant.
¶ 10The court reasoned that the trial, which had seen 14 witnesses examined, would now be delayed as the process might restart for the newly added co-accused.
¶ 12Applying the Prabhakar Tewari precedent, the court determined that the applicant's six criminal antecedents did not outweigh the lack of prima facie evidence in the present case and the prolonged pre-trial detention.
¶ 1205Holding
The High Court allowed the third bail application, holding that the "tainted" nature of the investigation and the delay in trial warranted the applicant’s release.
¶ 12, 13The court ordered the applicant to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety of the like sum, subject to conditions including cooperation with the trial, no further criminal activity, and a prohibition on leaving India without permission.
¶ 13The court clarified that these observations were limited to the bail proceedings and would not influence the final merits of the trial.
¶ 14Original Court PDF
RITIK KESHWANI @ BABBUvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
