Prolonged custody, no criminal antecedents and absence of direct evidence warrant bail.

A missing-person report was lodged for Suryaprakash @ Bablu on 3 December 2025; his body was recovered the next day, and his father lodged an FIR on 5 December 2025.

The applicant was arrested on 8 December 2025 in connection with the alleged offences under Sections 103, 238 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

During investigation, an iron pipe and a wooden club were recovered from the applicant and his brother, a co-accused.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The State opposed bail, relying on alleged prior enmity, the weapon recoveries, and the fact that 9 of 23 witnesses had been examined.

1. Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of the allegations, recoveries and stage of trial.

2. Whether the applicant’s period of custody, lack of criminal antecedents and the absence of direct evidence against him supported release on bail.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides the basis for the application for regular bail.

The charged provisions were Sections 103, 238 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court stated that the credibility and reliability of witnesses are not to be examined at the bail stage.

The post-mortem report identified a head injury as the cause of death and recorded incised injuries, while an iron pipe and wooden club had been seized from the applicant and his brother.

The Court nevertheless noted that there was no direct evidence against the applicant and that the alleged motive was based on an incident involving the deceased’s sister and the co-accused approximately three months earlier.

Although the State relied on the recoveries and the trial’s progress, the Court considered the applicant’s custody since 8 December 2025 and his lack of criminal antecedents, without determining the reliability of the evidence at this stage.

The High Court directed the applicant’s release on execution of a personal bond of ₹50,000 to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to conditions requiring availability for police interrogation, non-interference with witnesses, and conduct consistent with a fair and expeditious trial.

The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and would not affect the trial Court’s independent determination of the case.