The severity of a murder charge alone does not justify denying bail after investigation is complete.

The petitioner, Accused No. 1, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in a case alleging offences under Sections 61(2), 103(1), 240 and 332(A), read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

He had initially reported that his father was found dead and alleged that unknown persons were responsible.

The prosecution later alleged that, following a property dispute, the petitioner planned his father’s killing with Accused Nos. 2–5, who allegedly carried it out.

The charge sheet had been filed, the case committed to the Sessions Court and charges framed; the petitioner had been in judicial custody for more than seven months.

Accused Nos. 2–5 had been granted bail.

Section 483 BNSS provides the basis for the High Court’s power to grant bail.

The Court applied the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and that pre-trial detention should not operate as punishment before the charge is proved.

It considered the gravity of the charge under Section 103(1) BNS, which the Court noted is punishable with death or imprisonment for life, but held that the seriousness of the offence alone was not sufficient to deny bail.

The Court also referred to P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, SLP (Criminal) No. 7532 of 2025, concerning the inadmissibility of an accused’s police-recorded statement under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and the use of statements under Section 161 CrPC against a co-accused at the bail stage.

The Court did not determine the petitioner’s guilt or innocence at the bail stage.

The Court acknowledged the prosecution’s allegation that the petitioner had planned and instigated the killing, and treated the truth of that allegation as a matter for trial.

It nevertheless found that the investigation was complete, the charge sheet had been filed, and the petitioner was no longer required for custodial interrogation.

It also considered that Accused Nos. 2–5, alleged to have carried out the killing, had already been granted bail; that no antecedents or other special grounds for continued detention were shown; and that the petitioner was a permanent local resident who had spent more than seven months in custody.

The Court concluded that the concerns raised by the prosecution could be addressed through bail conditions.

Conditions required him to attend court as directed, assist the police if required, refrain from tampering with witnesses or obstructing the proceedings, and commit no similar or other offence during the case; breach would result in cancellation of bail.