Regular bail granted where no direct evidence, no weapon recovery, and trial was substantially delayed.

On 10 September 2025, the complainant, Hemchand Sahu, and his nephew, Hem Prasad Sahu, were allegedly assaulted near Dabo Road by the applicant and other co-accused persons using an iron rod. Hem Prasad sustained injuries and was declared dead at District Hospital, Mungeli. An FIR was registered as Crime No. 53/2025 at Police Station Fasterpur, Setganga, for offences under Sections 103(1), 309(4), 238, 61(2)(a) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The applicant, arrested on 18 September 2025, filed his first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”). He contended that the FIR was initially against unknown persons, no Test Identification Parade was conducted, the alleged eyewitness had not named him, and no weapon or other incriminating article had been seized from him. He further relied on the prolonged trial, noting that only 9 of 36 prosecution witnesses had been examined.

The State opposed bail, alleging the applicant’s involvement in a conspiracy to commit murder and asserting that an iron rod and motorcycle connected with the offence had been recovered from him.

1. Whether the applicant should be enlarged on regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in connection with the offences alleged under the BNS?

2. Whether the absence of direct evidence and seizure of an incriminating weapon from the applicant, together with his period of custody and the slow progress of trial, justified the grant of bail despite the gravity of the allegations?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant bail in cases involving an accused in custody.

The alleged offences were assessed under Sections 103(1), 309(4), 238, 61(2)(a) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

In exercising bail jurisdiction, the Court considered the prima facie nature of the evidence, the existence or absence of direct evidence and incriminating recoveries, the period of incarceration, and the likelihood of an early conclusion of the trial.

The Court found that the material against the applicant did not constitute direct evidence and that no incriminating weapon had been seized from his possession.

The applicant’s submissions also highlighted that the FIR did not initially name him, no TIP had been conducted, and the alleged eyewitness had not identified him as an assailant.

Although the State alleged recovery of an iron rod and motorcycle and relied on the alleged conspiracy, the Court, upon perusal of the case diary, placed emphasis on the absence of direct evidence, the applicant’s custody since 18 September 2025, and the fact that only 9 of 36 witnesses had been examined.

Since the trial was likely to take considerable time, the Court considered continued incarceration unjustified at the bail stage.

He was directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and to appear before it as and when directed.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial Court for compliance.