Uncorroborated memorandum statement of co-accused is insufficient to justify continued pre-trial detention.

The applicant was arrested on March 12, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 796/2015 registered by the Department of Forest, Ghatigaon.

The prosecution alleges that the applicant was engaged in the illegal cutting of forest trees (kher) and fled the scene upon the arrival of forest officials.

The applicant's involvement was primarily based on a memorandum statement of a co-accused recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The applicant moved this first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), contending false implication and the absence of corroborative evidence.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering the nature of the evidence and the duration of the trial?

2. Whether the memorandum statement of a co-accused, without independent corroboration, is sufficient to justify continued pre-trial detention?

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC) regarding the discretionary power to grant bail.

It relied on the fundamental legal principle that prolonged pre-trial detention is an "anathema to the concept of liberty".

Regarding evidence, the court considered the settled position that a memorandum statement of a co-accused, recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, is insufficient for a conviction or continued detention without independent, cogent, or corroborative material.

The substantive offences were registered under Sections 26 and 41 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and Sections 27, 29, 50, and 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.

The court evaluated the facts and the nature of the evidence, noting that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future.

It observed that the applicant had been in custody since March 12, 2026, and that the prosecution's case rested almost entirely on the memorandum statement of a co-accused, which lacked independent corroboration.

While the State opposed the bail citing the applicant's seven criminal antecedents, including two of a similar nature, the court balanced this against the right to personal liberty.

The court determined that since the applicant is a permanent resident and the case is triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), the risk of absconding could be mitigated by imposing strict conditions, including regular reporting to the police station.

The court held that the applicant deserved the benefit of bail due to the expected delay in the trial and the nature of the evidence.

The bail is subject to several conditions: the applicant must not commit further offences (failing which bail stands automatically cancelled), must cooperate with the trial, and must mark his presence at Police Station Ghatigaon every Sunday until the disposal of the case.