The Punjab & Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that bail is the norm, not the exception, in cases where an accused has no direct involvement in the alleged offence and the prosecution relies solely on inadmissible disclosure statements. This judgment reinforces constitutional safeguards for undertrials and clarifies evidentiary limits under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Yupender @ Yupendra Singh, is accused in connection with the murder of Ajay, whose body was recovered after a land sale transaction went awry. The alleged crime arose from a dispute over Rs. 1,30,00,000 received from the sale of one killa of land. The complainant, Yogesh, reported his brother Ajay missing after he visited the Tehsil Office, Sampala, on 30.04.2025. Subsequent investigations led to the recovery of the body and multiple disclosures by co-accused.
Key Facts
- The victim, Ajay, was last seen on 30.04.2025 near a water house in his village.
- FIR No. 156 was registered on 28.04.2025 at Police Station Sampla, District Rohtak, under Sections 127(6), 61(2), 103(1), 238(a), 315, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 346, 120-B, 201, 302, 404, and 34 of IPC), and Section 25(1-B)(a) & 27/29 of the Arms Act.
- On 22.06.2025, the complainant submitted a supplementary application alleging that Sumit and Bhupender were involved in the murder to seize the sale proceeds.
- Bhupender, one of the accused, made a disclosure statement on 22.06.2025, leading to recovery of Rs. 7,80,000 and identification of the murder and burial sites.
- Irfan was arrested based on Bhupender’s disclosure; a spade used to bury the body was recovered from him.
- Sumit made a disclosure on 28.06.2025, leading to recovery of a pistol, a cartridge, and Rs. 7,00,000 in currency notes. He implicated Bablu.
- Bablu was arrested and made a disclosure identifying the murder and burial sites; Rs. 1,70,000 was recovered from him.
- The petitioner, Yupender, was not named in the initial FIR or the supplementary application. He was named only as the alleged seller of weapons to the assailants.
- No weapon, ammunition, or incriminating material was recovered from the petitioner’s possession.
- The petitioner has been in judicial custody since approximately September 2025 - nearly seven months at the time of the hearing.
- The investigation was completed by the time of the bail hearing, with no further recovery expected from the petitioner.
Procedural History
- 28.04.2025: FIR registered at Police Station Sampla.
- 22.06.2025: Supplementary complaint filed by complainant; Bhupender’s disclosure recorded.
- 28.06.2025: Sumit’s disclosure recorded; recovery of pistol, cartridge, and Rs. 7,00,000.
- Late June 2025: Arrests of Bhupender, Irfan, Sumit, and Bablu.
- Early July 2025: Petitioner arrested on suspicion of selling weapons.
- 29.04.2026: Bail petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel contended that there is no direct evidence linking him to the conspiracy, preparation, or commission of the murder. His alleged role - selling weapons - is based solely on the uncorroborated disclosure statements of co-accused, which are inadmissible under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. No weapon or incriminating material was recovered from him. He has no prior criminal record and poses no risk of tampering with evidence or fleeing.
For the Respondent
The State did not file a written reply. The Additional Advocate General orally opposed bail, relying on the gravity of the offence and the fact that the petitioner was named in the investigation. No independent evidence or recovery was cited to substantiate the petitioner’s involvement.
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks release on bail pending trial, arguing that his continued detention violates his right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and the principle that bail is the rule, not the exception.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an accused, with no direct involvement in the commission of murder and whose only alleged connection is an uncorroborated disclosure statement by a co-accused, is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the absence of recoveries, independent evidence, or risk of flight or tampering.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) 3 SCC 22 to assert that the presumption of innocence and the general rule of bail are foundational to criminal jurisprudence. He argued that disclosure statements made in police custody are inadmissible as evidence under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, and since no weapon or incriminating material was recovered from him, the prosecution’s case against him is speculative. He further cited Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51 to emphasize that low conviction rates cannot justify denial of bail, and Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025 SCC Online SC 322) to highlight the violation of his right to a speedy trial after seven months of incarceration.
For the Respondent
The State offered no written submission and relied solely on the gravity of the offence and the fact that the petitioner was named in the investigation. No independent evidence or corroborative material was presented to substantiate his involvement. The State did not contest the absence of recoveries or the inadmissibility of the disclosure statements.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a meticulous review of the record and found that the petitioner’s connection to the crime is tenuous at best. The prosecution’s entire case against him rests on the disclosure statements of co-accused, none of which were corroborated by independent recovery or evidence.
"The only link, between the commission of crime and the petitioner, is that, he allegedly sold the weapons to the assailants. There is nothing on record to show that either in the conspiracy or in the preparation or at the time of commission of offence there was any involvement of the petitioner."
The Court noted that Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam renders statements made in police custody inadmissible as evidence unless they lead to discovery of a fact. Since no weapon or incriminating material was recovered from the petitioner, the disclosure statements implicating him are legally non-existent as evidence.
The Court emphasized that the grant of bail is not a determination of guilt but a safeguard against arbitrary detention. It cited Dataram Singh to reiterate that incarceration is an exception, not the rule, and Satender Kumar Antil to reject the notion that low conviction rates justify denying bail. The Court further invoked Tapas Kumar Palit to underscore that seven months of pre-trial detention, in a case where investigation is complete and no further evidence is expected from the petitioner, constitutes a violation of the right to speedy trial under Article 21.
The Court also found no grounds to believe the petitioner would tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. He had no prior criminal record, and the investigation was complete. His detention served no investigative purpose.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court granted bail on the following conditions: personal bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial court; no contact with witnesses or persons acquainted with the case; furnishing and updating residential address with the trial court; and no departure from India without prior permission. The petitioner shall be released forthwith upon compliance. No comment was made on the merits of the case.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Disclosure Statements Alone Cannot Justify Denial of Bail
- Practitioners must challenge bail denials based solely on uncorroborated police custody disclosures.
- Under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, such statements are inadmissible unless they lead to discovery of a fact - and even then, only the discovered fact is admissible.
- Absent independent recovery or corroborative evidence, disclosure-based allegations cannot sustain custody.
Presumption of Innocence Requires Strict Scrutiny of Bail Denials
- Courts must not conflate the gravity of the offence with the likelihood of guilt.
- The burden remains on the prosecution to demonstrate a real risk of flight, tampering, or reoffending - not to prove innocence.
- In cases involving multiple accused, the role of each must be individually assessed; mere association or peripheral involvement does not justify detention.
Delay in Trial Must Be Factored into Bail Decisions
- Pre-trial detention exceeding six months in serious cases triggers constitutional scrutiny under Article 21.
- Courts must actively manage case progression and consider delay as a factor in bail applications.
- Where investigation is complete and no further evidence is expected, continued custody becomes punitive and unconstitutional.
