P&H HC Grants Bail To Man Accused In Brother’s Death, Noting Complainant’s Admission Of Dictation During Video Statement

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in an FIR alleging offences under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; a charge was also framed under Section 61(2) BNS.

The deceased, the petitioner’s brother, sustained injuries on 8 October 2025, was treated at hospital, and died on 26 October 2025.

The prosecution relied, among other material, on video recordings said to contain the deceased naming the petitioner and a co-accused. The petitioner challenged the reliability of those recordings and relied on the complainant’s cross-examination, including her admissions that she was not an eyewitness and that another person was dictating during the recordings.

The petitioner had been in custody since 20 November 2025; investigation was complete, charges had been framed, and the complainant—the principal prosecution witness—had been examined and cross-examined.

Under Section 483 BNSS (corresponding to Section 439 CrPC), the court may grant regular bail after considering, among other relevant factors, the nature of the accusation, the material against the accused, the period of custody, the stage of trial and the risk of interference with the administration of justice.

The presumption of innocence and the principle that pre-trial detention should not become punishment inform that assessment; the gravity of the offence is important but is not considered in isolation (Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22).

A dying declaration may form the sole basis of conviction if found voluntary, truthful and reliable, while the circumstances in which it was recorded—including possible tutoring or prompting—are relevant to its credibility (Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 22; Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 6 SCC 710).

The Court recognised the seriousness of the accusation and the prosecution material, including the post-mortem findings and medical record referring to blunt abdominal trauma.

It considered that the causal relationship between the injuries and death, and the petitioner’s responsibility, required assessment at trial.

The complainant’s lack of eyewitness knowledge, her evidence about the absence of reports during hospitalisation, and her admissions concerning dictation during the video recordings raised matters for trial as to the reliability of the prosecution material; the Court did not determine their ultimate evidentiary effect.

It also took account of the petitioner’s custody, completion of investigation, examination of the principal witness, lack of criminal antecedents and the likely duration of trial, concluding that the risk of interference could be addressed by bail conditions.

The petitioner was directed not to influence prosecution witnesses, interfere with remaining evidence or obstruct the trial.