The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to an accused in a case under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, where forensic evidence conclusively negated the alleged cause of death. The judgment underscores that bail cannot be denied solely on the basis of serious allegations when medical findings directly contradict the prosecution’s narrative. This decision reinforces the principle that pre-trial detention must be justified by credible, material evidence of guilt.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Balvant S/o Pritviraj, aged 33, is a qualified compounder holding a certificate from the Rajasthan Nursing Council. He is accused in connection with the death of Rekha, who allegedly died after receiving an injection administered at a medical store owned by his wife. The FIR, lodged on 12.03.2026 at Shahpura Police Station, Bhilwara, alleges that the improper administration of an injection caused sudden death, invoking Section 272 and Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which correspond to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and causing death by act done with knowledge of likely harm.
Key Facts
- The deceased, Rekha, was administered an injection containing Ceftriaxone and Sulbactam on or about 11.03.2026.
- The medical store where the injection was given is registered in the name of the petitioner’s wife, who holds a Diploma in Pharmacy and a valid license.
- The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, dated 20.03.2026, concluded that the cause of death was sudden cardiac failure secondary to myocardial infarction due to coronary insufficiency.
- Neither Ceftriaxone nor Sulbactam are known to cause cardiac failure as a direct side effect.
- No allegation of medical negligence or improper dosage was made in the FIR or challan.
- The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 23.03.2026.
Procedural History
- 11.03.2026: Alleged incident - administration of injection to deceased Rekha.
- 12.03.2026: FIR No. 0077/2026 lodged at Shahpura Police Station.
- 20.03.2026: FSL report submitted, concluding cardiac failure as cause of death.
- 23.03.2026: Petitioner arrested and placed in judicial custody.
- 02.07.2026: Bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS (formerly Section 439 CrPC).
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner: The petitioner’s counsel argued that the FSL report conclusively refutes the FIR’s allegation that the injection caused death. He emphasized that the medicines involved have no known link to cardiac arrest, and the petitioner, as a licensed compounder, acted within professional norms. He further contended that Sections 19 and 26 of the BNS, 2023, which provide exceptions for acts done in good faith for medical purposes, apply to his case, negating criminal liability.
For the Respondent: The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, asserting that the allegations under Sections 272 and 105 of the BNS, 2023, are serious and that the petitioner’s custody is necessary to ensure trial integrity. No counter-medical evidence was presented.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought immediate release on bail, arguing that prolonged pre-trial detention is unjustified in light of the FSL findings and the absence of any material evidence linking him to the death.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Sections 272 and 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, can sustain a charge of culpable homicide where the medical evidence conclusively establishes a natural cause of death unrelated to the alleged act, and no prima facie case of negligence or intent is established.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on the FSL report to demonstrate that the death resulted from natural cardiac pathology, not pharmacological harm. He cited Section 19 of the BNS, 2023, which excludes liability for acts done in good faith for the benefit of another, and Section 26, which protects acts done by persons with reasonable belief of lawful authority. He argued that the absence of any allegation of negligence or deviation from standard medical practice rendered the charge unsustainable. He further submitted that the petitioner’s professional credentials and the licensed status of the medical store support his good faith conduct.
For the Respondent
The Public Prosecutor maintained that the mere fact of administering an injection prior to death raises a presumption of causation under Section 105 of the BNS, 2023, and that the burden of proving absence of culpability lies with the accused. No medical rebuttal or expert testimony was offered to challenge the FSL findings.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous review of the FSL report and the FIR, noting a complete disconnect between the alleged cause of death and the medical findings. The judgment explicitly states:
"...the cause of death was not on account of administration of injection but due to cardiac failure and further considering the fact that there is no allegation of any medical negligence on the part of the petitioner..."
The Court held that for an offence under Sections 272 and 105 of the BNS, 2023, there must be a prima facie link between the accused’s act and the resultant death. Where the medical evidence establishes an independent, natural cause, and no negligence or intent is alleged or evidenced, the foundation for the charge collapses. The Court emphasized that bail is not a determination of guilt but a balancing of liberty against the risk of flight or tampering - neither of which was suggested here. The petitioner’s professional standing and the absence of any prior criminal record further supported the grant of bail. The Court clarified that its observations were strictly confined to the bail stage and would not prejudice the trial court.
The Verdict
The bail application was allowed. The petitioner, Balvant S/o Pritviraj, shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each, to be approved by the trial court. He must appear before the trial court on all hearing dates and whenever summoned. The Court directed that its observations on the medical evidence shall not influence the trial court’s evaluation of the case on merits.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Medical Evidence Can Defeat Serious Criminal Charges at Bail Stage
- Practitioners must prioritize obtaining and presenting forensic reports early in bail applications involving medical causation.
- Where FSL or autopsy reports conclusively rule out the alleged mechanism of harm, courts are likely to find no prima facie case under BNS Sections 272 or 105.
Good Faith and Professional Licensing Are Relevant to Bail
- Holding valid licenses and acting within professional norms strengthens the argument for good faith under Section 19 of the BNS, 2023.
- Courts may consider professional credentials as indicators of absence of criminal intent, especially in healthcare-related cases.
Bail Is Not a Merits Determination - But It Is a Threshold Test
- The Court reaffirmed that bail decisions are not about proving innocence but about whether the charge is supported by credible evidence.
- Absent material evidence linking the accused to the harm, prolonged custody is unjustified even for serious offences.
