Regular bail granted where co-accused’s allegation lacked medical corroboration and investigation was complete.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 268/2025 registered at Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution alleged that the deceased, Shiva Nayak, was murdered, and that the applicant, along with co-accused Raja @ Bhuruwa Verma, participated in the offence.

The post-mortem report attributed the death to cardiorespiratory arrest caused by hypovolemic shock resulting from multiple injuries; however, no mark was found on the deceased’s neck.

A knife was seized pursuant to the co-accused’s memorandum statement, but no incriminating article was recovered from the applicant’s exclusive possession.

The State alleged that the co-accused’s memorandum statement implicated the applicant in the use of a clutch wire.

The charge-sheet had been filed, and the applicant had remained in custody since 20 May 2025.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the material collected during investigation, the medical evidence, filing of the charge-sheet, and the period of custody.

Whether the alleged implication of the applicant through the co-accused’s memorandum statement and his criminal antecedent justified denial of bail.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the grant of regular bail by the High Court or Court of Session.

It considered the allegations under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, without finally determining the applicant’s guilt.

The Court assessed the prima facie evidentiary strength of the prosecution case, the consistency of the allegation with the medical evidence, the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s period of custody, and the possibility of securing his presence and protecting the fairness of the trial through appropriate bail conditions.

No judicial precedent was relied upon in the order.

The Court found that the allegation against the applicant was that he had used a clutch wire to commit the murder, but the post-mortem report disclosed no injury or mark on the deceased’s neck and instead attributed death to multiple injuries causing hypovolemic shock.

Accordingly, the medical evidence did not corroborate the specific allegation concerning the clutch wire.

The Court also noted that no incriminating article had been recovered from the applicant’s exclusive possession, that the charge-sheet had already been filed, and that he had remained in custody since 20 May 2025.

Although the State relied on the co-accused’s memorandum statement and referred to one criminal antecedent, the Court concluded that these circumstances did not warrant continued detention at the bail stage.

The Court expressly clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not affect the merits of the trial.

The applicant was directed to be released upon executing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

The bail was subject to conditions that he would not threaten, induce, or influence witnesses; would not prejudice a fair and expeditious trial; and would appear before the trial Court on every date fixed until disposal of the case.