P&H HC Cancels Bail Of Man Accused Of Killing Complainant’s Son, Citing Concealed Earlier Plea And Trial Court’s Reliance On IO’s Account

The complainant’s son, Akash, was allegedly murdered.

Respondent No. 2, Pawan, was accused of inflicting hammer blows on Akash’s head.

After his first bail application was dismissed by the Sessions Court, Pawan filed CRM-M-68018-2025 before the High Court, which was withdrawn.

He then obtained bail on a second application before the Sessions Court.

In considering that application, the Sessions Court recorded the Investigating Officer’s statement that Pawan was involved only in a later incident at the hospital and had not injured Akash.

The complainant sought cancellation of bail, alleging that the prior High Court proceedings had not been disclosed and that the bail order relied on an improper statement by the Investigating Officer.

A report from the Sessions Judge stated that neither the accused nor the prosecution had disclosed the High Court proceedings in the bail application and accompanying materials.

The Court held that, at the stage of framing charges, the Trial Court must independently examine the final report under Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the material accompanying it, rather than rely on an Investigating Officer’s oral statement when the officer has not been summoned as a prosecution witness.

The Court also emphasised judicial propriety and the importance of disclosing prior bail proceedings to the Court considering a subsequent bail application.

The Sessions Court had granted bail after relying on the Investigating Officer’s statement that Pawan was not involved in the first occurrence and had caused no injury to Akash, despite the investigation being complete and the final report having been filed.

The High Court considered that the charge-stage inquiry required independent assessment of the final report and supporting material, and that reliance on the oral statement undermined the evidentiary and procedural significance of that record.

It further found that the prior High Court bail proceedings were material to the subsequent application and that their non-disclosure by the accused, together with the Investigating Officer’s failure to disclose them, raised concerns about the propriety of the bail proceedings.

The Court did not determine the merits of the evidence or Pawan’s involvement in either part of the incident.

It advised the Trial Court not to rely on oral statements of the Investigating Officer that are unsupported by the investigation or documentary record, while leaving the merits of the accused’s involvement for determination at trial.

The petition was disposed of, with liberty for Pawan to seek fresh bail before an appropriate forum in accordance with law.