Regular bail granted in circumstantial murder case after unexplained FIR delay, completed investigation, and absence of criminal antecedents.

The petitioner was charged under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, with murdering Dileep Sharma. The prosecution alleged that, after a dispute over a debt of ₹3,000 between the petitioner and CW-2, Sharma intervened; the petitioner later allegedly assaulted Sharma with a knife because Sharma was recording the petitioner’s conduct

The prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence, with CW-2 said to have last seen Sharma with the petitioner; CW-2 was not present when the alleged assault occurred

The FIR was lodged more than 24 hours after the incident, and the delay was stated to be unexplained. The petitioner had no other criminal antecedents, and the investigation was complete

After the Sessions Court rejected his bail application, the petitioner sought regular bail before the High Court under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

1. Whether the petitioner should be enlarged on regular bail while facing trial for an offence under Section 103(1) of the BNS, having regard to the circumstantial nature of the prosecution case and the other circumstances on record

Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, empowers the High Court to grant bail.

In exercising that power, the Court considered the circumstances relevant to the application, including the nature of the prosecution evidence, the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, and the completion of the investigation

The alleged offence was punishable under Section 103(1) of the BNS, 2023

The Court found that the case rested on circumstantial evidence and that CW-2, the witness said to have last seen Sharma with the petitioner, was not present at the time of the alleged assault

It also considered the unexplained delay of more than 24 hours in lodging the FIR, the petitioner’s lack of criminal antecedents, and the fact that investigation had concluded

In light of these circumstances, the Court considered regular bail appropriate, subject to conditions

The conditions included execution of a ₹1,00,000 personal bond with two sureties, one being a local surety; regular appearance before the Trial Court; non-interference with prosecution witnesses; refraining from similar offences; and not leaving the Trial Court’s jurisdiction without permission