Regular bail granted where no prima facie evidence establishes complicity or knowledge of the alleged criminal conspiracy.

The applicant sought regular bail in connection with FIR No. 368/2024, registered under Sections 103(1), 61(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution’s case, based on a narrative provided by a witness named Salman, alleged that Salman dropped two shooters, Madhur and Raju, at the applicant’s residence.

Subsequently, the applicant was present during a phone conversation where another individual, Rashid, informed Salman that the shooters had killed the deceased, Nadir Shah.

Notably, Salman, who facilitated the shooters' transportation, was treated as a witness rather than an accused.

The State further alleged that the applicant issued threats to Salman following the latter's statement under Section 183 of the BNSS.

The Court considered Section 103(1) (Murder), Section 61(2) (Criminal Conspiracy), and Section 3(5) (Common Intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

It further referenced the procedural requirements of Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) regarding the recording of statements.

Provisions of Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The Court noted that the prosecution failed to file a status report and relied on an oral factual matrix.

Upon analyzing the narrative, the Court found that there was no specific allegation that the applicant was aware that the individuals brought to his house were shooters or killers.

The Court highlighted a significant disparity in the investigation: Salman, who admittedly commuted the shooters and remained in contact with the conspirators, was made a witness, while the applicant was incarcerated despite a lack of clear complicity.

Regarding the alleged threat to the witness, the Court observed that since Salman's Section 183 BNSS statement did not actually implicate the applicant in the killing, the motive for such a threat was logically questionable.

Finding no prima facie evidence of complicity, the Court determined that the applicant's liberty should not be further curtailed.

The applicant was directed to be released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

The Court clarified that these observations would not prejudice the final trial.