Regular Bail Granted Where No Direct Evidence Linked the Applicant Beyond a Co-Accused’s Memorandum Statement

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 189/2025, registered under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, after the deceased’s body was found in a school courtyard.

The prosecution alleged that co-accused Rahul Verma inflicted the knife blow and that the applicant and another co-accused held the deceased; the applicant’s alleged role was stated in Rahul Verma’s memorandum statement.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that there was no direct evidence against him, the charge-sheet had been filed, he had no criminal antecedents, and he had been in custody since 3 May 2025.

The State opposed bail, relying on the co-accused’s statement implicating the applicant.

Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the nature of the material implicating him and the circumstances of his custody.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the basis for the High Court’s consideration of an application for regular bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court identified no precedent or further bail doctrine in its reasoning; it assessed the application on the circumstances before it, including the evidence alleged against the applicant, completion of the investigation, criminal antecedents, period of custody, and likely time to conclude the trial.

The Court considered that the applicant was implicated solely through the co-accused’s memorandum statement and that there was no direct evidence against him.

It also took into account that the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant had no criminal antecedents, he had remained in judicial custody since 3 May 2025, and the trial was likely to take time.

On those combined grounds, and without expressing an opinion on the merits, the Court found it appropriate to grant bail.

It directed that the applicant be released upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to conditions prohibiting interference with witnesses or the fair trial and requiring attendance on every date fixed by the trial Court.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and that the trial Court must decide the case on its own merits.