The Rajasthan High Court has reaffirmed that prolonged pre-trial detention cannot be justified solely on the basis of delayed inclusion of an accused in supplementary statements, especially when no credible explanation is offered for the omission in the original FIR. This ruling reinforces the principle that bail must be the norm, not the exception, in cases where the prosecution’s case remains untested and investigation is complete.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Vishal S/o Motiram and Sanjay S/o Late Shri Saktaram, were arrested in connection with FIR No. 80/2025 registered at Police Station Dangiyawas, District Jodhpur, for offences under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 190, 191(2), 115(2), and 126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The case arises from an alleged fatal assault on a deceased individual, with multiple accused persons implicated.
Key Facts
- The incident occurred prior to the registration of FIR on 25.07.2025
- The original FIR named Bablu, Manish, and Sunil as accused, along with two or three unidentified persons
- The sole eyewitness, Sunil S/o Shri Kalu, did not mention Vishal or Sanjay in his initial statement recorded on 25.07.2025
- Supplementary statements under Section 161 CrPC were recorded on 31.07.2025, nearly ten days later, in which the names of Vishal and Sanjay were introduced for the first time
- No explanation was provided by the Investigating Officer for the delay in naming the petitioners
- No identification parade was conducted to verify the petitioners’ involvement
- Recoveries were made from Vishal: a lathi and a motorcycle; no recovery was made from Sanjay
- Manish, who was named in the original FIR and from whom recoveries were made, was granted bail by the same Court on 19.02.2026 despite being given a clean chit by the Investigating Agency
- The petitioners have been in judicial custody since 01.08.2025
- The trial has not commenced; no witness statements have been recorded before the court
- The investigation is complete and the charge sheet has been filed
Procedural History
- 25.07.2025: FIR No. 80/2025 registered at Police Station Dangiyawas
- 31.07.2025: Supplementary statements recorded, naming petitioners for the first time
- 01.08.2025: Arrest of petitioners Vishal and Sanjay
- 08.05.2026: Bail applications filed under Section 483 of the BNSS before the High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought release on bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, arguing that their prolonged detention without trial, absence from the original FIR, and lack of explanation for delayed implication rendered their custody unjustified.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an accused person, not named in the original FIR or initial witness statements and only implicated through supplementary statements recorded days later without explanation, can be denied bail merely on the basis of such delayed inclusion, particularly when co-accused with similar or stronger evidence against them have already been granted bail.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the petitioners were not mentioned in the first version of the FIR or the initial eyewitness statement, and their inclusion came only in supplementary statements recorded ten days after the FIR. No reason was given for this delay, and no identification parade was conducted. The recovery of a lathi and motorcycle from Vishal was insufficient to justify continued custody, especially since Manish - named in the FIR and from whom similar recoveries were made - had already been granted bail. The investigation was complete, the trial had not begun, and there was no allegation of flight risk or evidence tampering.
For the Respondent
The Public Prosecutor contended that recoveries were made from Vishal, which indicated his involvement, and therefore bail should not be granted. The complainant’s counsel emphasized the seriousness of the offence under the BNS and argued that the petitioners’ implication, even if delayed, was substantiated by the charge sheet.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the procedural irregularities in the prosecution’s case and found that the petitioners’ inclusion in the case was both delayed and unexplained. The Court observed that the supplementary statements, which formed the sole basis for implicating the petitioners, were not corroborated by any independent evidence or identification process.
"The admissibility and evidentiary value of such supplementary statements are matters to be examined during trial."
The Court noted that Manish, who was named in the original FIR and from whom recoveries were made, had been granted bail despite being given a clean chit by the Investigating Agency. The Court held that the case of Vishal could not be treated as worse than that of Manish, given the absence of any distinguishing factor in the quality or timing of evidence against them. Sanjay, who had no recovery and was not named in the original FIR, stood on even weaker ground.
The Court emphasized that the investigation was complete, the trial had not commenced, and the petitioners had been in custody for over nine months without a single witness being examined before the court. The prosecution failed to demonstrate any risk of absconding or tampering with evidence. The Court held that the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution must prevail where the prosecution’s case remains untested and the grounds for detention are tenuous.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court granted bail to both Vishal S/o Motiram and Sanjay S/o Late Shri Saktaram under Section 483 of the BNSS. Each petitioner shall be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each, to the satisfaction of the trial court. They are directed to appear before the trial court on every hearing date and whenever called upon until the conclusion of the trial.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Delayed Implication Without Explanation Undermines Custody
- Practitioners must challenge prolonged detention where accused are named only in supplementary statements without a plausible explanation for the delay
- The absence of an identification parade or corroborative evidence after delayed inclusion weakens the prosecution’s case for continued custody
- Courts must scrutinize whether the delay in naming an accused is a procedural lapse or a deliberate tactic to extend detention
Bail Cannot Be Denied Based on Selective Prosecution
- If co-accused with stronger or similar evidence are granted bail, denial of bail to others on identical or weaker grounds violates the principle of equal treatment under Article 14
- The Court’s observation that Manish was granted bail despite a clean chit sets a precedent: bail decisions must be consistent across similarly situated accused
- Prosecution’s selective charging or inconsistent treatment of accused cannot justify differential bail outcomes
Investigation Completion Triggers Right to Bail
- Once the investigation is complete and the charge sheet filed, the presumption shifts toward release unless the prosecution demonstrates a compelling reason for continued custody
- The absence of trial commencement for over nine months strengthens the petitioner’s claim to liberty
- Courts should not defer bail decisions indefinitely on the pretext of pending trial when no evidence has been recorded
