Bail Under BNS | Absence of Forensic Evidence Contradicting FIR Justifies Release in Murder Case : Allahabad HC

In a significant bail order, the Allahabad High Court has granted bail to an accused in a brutal murder case registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), despite allegations of a common intention to kill. The Court observed that while the deceased suffered multiple injuries, the post-mortem report did not support the FIR version of a gunshot to the head, and no specific role was assigned to the applicant in the statements of key witnesses. This order underscores the importance of evidentiary consistency in bail considerations under the new criminal law framework.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The applicant, Juver Ahmad @ Jubair Ahmad, sought bail in Case Crime No. 321 of 2025, registered under Sections 103(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 109(1), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), at Police Station Deeh, District Raebareli. The case arose from an FIR lodged on 12.12.2025, alleging that six accused persons, including the applicant, brutally murdered the informant’s cousin, Murtaza Hussain, by shooting him in the head under a common intention.

Key Facts

• Incident Date and Time: The alleged murder took place at 03:50 p.m. on 12.12.2025 near Gosai Baba, while the deceased was returning home on his motorcycle with his daughter, Ishrat Jahan.
• FIR Version: The FIR stated that the accused persons stopped the deceased and shot him in the head, resulting in his death on the spot.
• Post-Mortem Findings: The post-mortem report revealed the following injuries:
  • A crushed injury on the bilateral fronto-parietal area (18 cm x 16 cm), with the skull fractured in multiple pieces and brain matter exposed.
  • No blackening, tattooing, or exit wound, and no bullet was recovered from the injury.
  • A lacerated wound (2 cm x 0.5 cm) on the occipital area.
  • An abrasion (2 cm x 1 cm) on the occipital area, 9 cm posterior to the left ear.
  • An abraded contusion (2 cm x 1 cm) on the root of the nose, with underlying bone fractured.
  • Cause of Death: Haemorrhagic shock due to ante-mortem injuries.
• Witness Statements:
  • Ishrat Jahan (deceased’s daughter): Initially stated that she was accompanying her father and saw the accused chasing him. In her additional statement, she claimed that co-accused Naeem fired a shot, causing her father to fall, and that the accused assaulted him with bricks and a hammer.
  • Mohd. Sofiyan (deceased’s nephew): Corroborated Ishrat Jahan’s statement, alleging that Naeem assaulted the deceased with a hammer and Ayub with a brick.
  • Tausif (another witness): Gave a similar statement to Mohd. Sofiyan.
• Applicant’s Position: The applicant claimed innocence, stating he was falsely implicated and had no criminal history.

Procedural History

• 12.12.2025: FIR lodged against six accused persons, including the applicant.
• 14.01.2026: Applicant arrested and remanded to judicial custody.
• 11.03.2026: Charge sheet filed by the investigating agency.
• June 2026: Bail application (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4175 of 2026) filed before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench.

Relief Sought

The applicant sought release on bail, contending that he was falsely implicated and that no specific role was assigned to him in the commission of the offence.

The Legal Issue

The central question before the Court was whether bail could be granted under Section 480 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to an accused charged with murder under Section 103 BNS, where:

1. The FIR alleged a gunshot injury, but the post-mortem report did not support this version.
2. The statements of key witnesses did not assign any specific role to the applicant.
3. The applicant had no criminal antecedents and had been in custody since 14.01.2026.

Arguments Presented

For the Applicant

• The applicant was falsely implicated, and the FIR version of a gunshot injury was not corroborated by the post-mortem report.
• No specific role was assigned to the applicant in the statements of the eye witnesses.
• The applicant had no criminal history and had been languishing in jail since 14.01.2026.
• The investigation was complete, and no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in custody.

For the Opposite Party (State and Complainant)

• The Additional Government Advocate opposed the bail application, submitting that the allegations were established during investigation and a charge sheet had been filed on 11.03.2026.
• The counsel for the complainant argued that all accused persons acted under a common intention and brutally caused multiple injuries to the deceased, resulting in his death.

The Court's Analysis

The Court undertook a detailed examination of the evidentiary inconsistencies and the role assigned to the applicant in the case. Key observations included:

1. Discrepancy in FIR and Post-Mortem Report:

   "The incident is said to have been witnessed by the deceased's daughter, who was accompanying him on his motorcycle at the time of incident and yet the FIR alleges that the deceased was killed by firing a gun shot in his head, which allegation is not established by a post mortem examination report."

   The Court noted that while the FIR alleged a gunshot injury, the post-mortem report did not support this version. Instead, it revealed injuries consistent with assault by blunt objects like bricks and a hammer.

2. Lack of Specific Role Assigned to the Applicant:

   "The subsequent statements recorded during investigation, that the alleged eye witnesses stated that co-accused Naeem hit the deceased with a hammer and Ayub hit him with a brick but no specific role has been assigned to the applicant."

   The Court emphasized that the statements of Ishrat Jahan, Mohd. Sofiyan, and Tausif implicated co-accused Naeem and Ayub but did not assign any specific role to the applicant.

3. Absence of Criminal Antecedents: The Court took note of the applicant’s clean criminal record and his prolonged incarceration since 14.01.2026.

4. Conclusion of Investigation: The Court observed that the investigation had concluded, and a charge sheet had been filed, reducing the risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

Based on these factors, the Court concluded that the applicant’s continued detention was not justified, particularly in the absence of a specific role assigned to him in the commission of the offence.

The Verdict

The Allahabad High Court allowed the bail application and directed the release of the applicant, Juver Ahmad @ Jubair Ahmad, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to the following conditions:

1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
2. The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
3. The applicant shall appear on each date fixed by the trial court, unless exempted by the court.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Evidentiary Consistency Is Critical for Bail

• Courts are increasingly scrutinizing discrepancies between FIR versions and medical evidence while deciding bail applications.
• Practitioners must highlight inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, particularly where the FIR alleges one mode of injury (e.g., gunshot) but medical evidence suggests another (e.g., blunt force trauma).
• Post-mortem reports can play a decisive role in bail proceedings, especially in cases where the cause of death is contested.

No Specific Role Can Be a Ground for Bail

• Where multiple accused are involved, the absence of a specific role assigned to an individual accused can be a strong ground for bail.
• Defence counsel should emphasize lack of direct involvement in the commission of the offence, as seen in this case where the applicant was not named in witness statements for any specific act.
• This principle is particularly relevant under Section 109 BNS (abetment), where the prosecution must prove active participation.

Prolonged Custody Without Trial Favours Bail

• Courts are inclined to grant bail where the accused has been in prolonged custody without trial, especially if the investigation is complete.
• Practitioners should argue that continued detention serves no purpose, particularly when the charge sheet has been filed and the risk of tampering with evidence is minimal.
• This aligns with the judicial trend of balancing individual liberty with the interests of justice, as seen in precedents like Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI.