Presence on scene without overt act of assault warrants bail in murder trial.

The applicant, Ravi Meena, filed his first bail application following his arrest on June 28, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 308/2025.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with co-accused Arjun Chouhan, Harish Pawar, and Umesh Dabi, intercepted the victim, Tarun @ Kanha, and Mohit Raghuvanshi.

While the co-accused allegedly chased and assaulted Tarun with a knife and physical force—leading to his death—the specific allegation against the applicant was his presence at the spot during the initial interception.

The applicant sought bail on the grounds of false implication, lack of incriminating recovery, and the fact that material eyewitnesses had already been examined.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering his limited role in the alleged offence.

2. Whether the continued incarceration of the applicant is necessary given his lack of criminal antecedents and the stage of the trial.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

The substantive charges involved Sections 103(1) (Murder), 3(5) (Joint Liability), and 61(2) (Criminal Conspiracy) of the BNS, 2023, along with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The court relied on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, particularly where the accused has "clean past with family roots" and poses no risk of tampering with evidence or fleeing from justice.

The Court observed that while the offence is grave, the specific allegations against the applicant relate primarily to his presence during the interception rather than active participation in the subsequent fatal assault or chase.

The Court noted that the material eye-witness (PW2) had already been examined, and there was no evidence suggesting the applicant could influence remaining witnesses.

Furthermore, the State’s counsel conceded that the applicant had no prior criminal record.

Since the trial is expected to take time and the applicant’s intention and veracity of role are matters to be determined during the trial, the Court found his contentions to have prima facie merit.

The socio-economic status and family responsibilities of the applicant further mitigated the risk of him fleeing from justice.

The holding emphasized that there was no compelling reason for continued incarceration.

The relief was granted subject to conditions, including regular attendance at hearings, refraining from committing similar offences, and non-interference with witnesses or evidence.

The order remains effective until the conclusion of the trial unless breached.