Omission of Accused's Name in Inquest Report Cannot Solely Justify Grant of Bail

The Appellant, nephew of the deceased Bharat Singh, challenged a High Court of Allahabad order dated January 22, 2026, which granted bail to Respondent No. 2 (Accused No. 1).

On March 8, 2025, Respondent No. 2 and two others allegedly fired multiple pistol shots at the deceased, causing instantaneous death.

Following a disclosure statement, a .315 bore pistol and spent cartridge were recovered at the instance of Respondent No. 2.

While the Sessions Court rejected the bail application citing the gravity of the offence and the recovery of the weapon, the High Court granted bail, primarily observing that the informant and another witness had not made specific allegations against Respondent No. 2 during the initial inquest proceedings.

1. Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail based on the omission of names in the inquest report while ignoring other incriminating material on record.

2. Whether the impugned order of the High Court suffered from non-application of mind and failure to adhere to settled parameters for granting bail in serious offences.

The Court applied Sections 103(1), 352, 351(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, along with Sections 180 and 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The scope of an inquest under Section 174 of the CrPC (now Section 194 BNSS), relying on Pedda Narayana v. State of A.P. and Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh, establish that an inquest is a preliminary inquiry of limited character intended only to ascertain the apparent cause of death, not to identify the accused or record a detailed account of the incident.

The Supreme Court found the High Court’s reasoning perverse, noting that the High Court drew an impermissible adverse inference from the absence of the accused's name in the inquest report.

The Court reasoned that under Section 194 of the BNSS, an inquest is not supposed to be a summary of the entire prosecution case or a record of the names of the accused.

The Bench observed that the High Court ignored critical evidence, including: (i) the specific overt act attributed to Respondent No. 2 in the FIR; (ii) the post-mortem report confirming firearm injuries; (iii) the recovery of the murder weapon at the instance of the accused; and (iv) witness statements recorded under Section 180 BNSS.

The Court concluded that the High Court exercised its judicial discretion in a non-judicious manner by passing a "cryptic and non-speaking" order that failed to analyze the gravity of the murder charge.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order dated January 22, 2026, remanding the matter for fresh consideration; Respondent No. 2 was directed to surrender to the concerned jail authorities within one week.