Uncorroborated confessional statements in circumstantial evidence cases are insufficient to justify the rejection of bail.

The Applicant, Suraj, filed a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding Case Crime No. 134 of 2025.

The prosecution alleged that the Complainant’s husband was fatally shot by unknown persons between 1:00 AM and 2:30 AM. The body was discovered at 4:30 AM the following morning soaked in blood.

The Applicant was not named in the First Information Report (FIR) and his involvement was primarily based on a confessional statement made to the police.

The Applicant moved the High Court seeking regular bail on the grounds of lack of corroborative evidence and the absence of a chain of circumstantial evidence.

1. Whether the Applicant is entitled to regular bail in a matter primarily based on circumstantial evidence and an uncorroborated confessional statement

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC), which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (Punishment for murder) and Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act.

The court further considered the evidentiary principle that a conviction cannot be based solely on an uncorroborated confessional statement made to police, and that in cases of circumstantial evidence, a complete chain of events must be established.

The Court evaluated the submission that the Applicant’s name did not appear in the FIR and that the prosecution relied entirely on circumstantial evidence.

The Court noted that there was no "last seen" evidence or witness statements linking the Applicant to the crime scene.

The Applicant’s primary implication rested on a custodial confession, which the defense argued was uncorroborated and legally insufficient to justify continued incarceration.

Despite the State’s opposition based on the gravity of the confession, the Court found merit in the Applicant’s contention that the "star witnesses" did not support the prosecution's story.

Without delving into the final merits of the trial, the Court determined that the lack of a clear evidentiary link made it a fit case for the exercise of discretionary power to grant bail.

It held that the Applicant was entitled to release pending trial as the prosecution's case lacked immediate corroborative links.

The Court directed that Suraj be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to the conditions that he cooperate with trial proceedings and not misuse his liberty.