The Bombay High Court has clarified that when an investigation is complete and the charge sheet filed, bail cannot be denied solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence and inadmissible confessional statements, even in serious fraud cases. This ruling reinforces the principle that pre-trial detention must be justified by concrete risk factors, not speculative allegations.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arises from a complex scheme involving the fraudulent transfer of agricultural land belonging to Anup Mahesh Jaiswal. The prosecution alleges that the applicant, Akash @ Shiva S/o Pruthviraj Tiwari, conspired with others to falsely implicate Anup Jaiswal in a narcotics case (Crime No. 107/2025) to secure his incarceration, thereby enabling the illegal sale of his property.
Key Facts
- Anup Jaiswal, the rightful owner of agricultural land measuring 8.49 hectares at Gat No. 52/1, Mouza Waki, Yavatmal, was arrested in Crime No. 107/2025 on 27/01/2025.
- Crime No. 107/2025 was registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and the Arms Act.
- While Anup Jaiswal was in custody, a sale deed for his land was executed on 27/01/2025 at Sub-Registrar Office No. 2, Yavatmal, in the name of Sachin Raut.
- Sandeep Jadhav, an accused in the case, impersonated Anup Jaiswal before the Sub-Registrar by presenting fake Aadhaar and PAN cards bearing his own photograph.
- The applicant is alleged to have orchestrated the forgery, including the creation of fake identity documents and coordination with Sachin Raut.
- CDR records show calls between the applicant and Sachin Raut during the relevant period.
- Sandeep Jadhav made a confessional statement implicating the applicant, but it was not recorded under Section 164 CrPC.
- Crime No. 233/2025 was registered on 10/02/2025 for offences under Sections 318(4), 336(2)(3), 340(2), 61, 238, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- The applicant was arrested on 20/11/2025 and has been in custody since.
- Anup Jaiswal was discharged in Crime No. 107/2025.
Procedural History
- 27/01/2025: Anup Jaiswal arrested in Crime No. 107/2025.
- 10/02/2025: Crime No. 233/2025 registered against the applicant and others.
- 20/11/2025: Applicant arrested and remanded to judicial custody.
- Prior to 30/03/2026: Applicant’s application for anticipatory bail was rejected by this Court and subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court.
- 30/03/2026: Present application for regular bail filed and heard.
Relief Sought
The applicant seeks regular bail in Crime No. 233/2025, arguing that the investigation is complete, the charge sheet is filed, and there is no material evidence directly linking him to the conspiracy beyond inadmissible statements and circumstantial call records.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether bail can be denied in a case under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 where the investigation is complete, the charge sheet is filed, and the only evidence against the accused consists of inadmissible confessional statements and indirect circumstantial links such as call records.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The learned Senior Counsel argued that the prosecution’s case rests entirely on the uncorroborated and inadmissible confessional statement of Sandeep Jadhav, which cannot be relied upon under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. He emphasized that no direct evidence connects the applicant to the preparation of fake documents or the execution of the sale deed. The CDR records, while showing communication with Sachin Raut, do not establish criminal intent or participation. He further submitted that the maximum punishment for the offences is seven years, and the applicant has been in custody since 20/11/2025, making continued detention unjustified in the absence of risk of tampering or flight.
For the Respondent
The learned APP contended that the applicant was the mastermind behind a multi-stage conspiracy: first, framing Anup Jaiswal in Crime No. 107/2025 to secure his incarceration, and second, using impersonation and forged documents to transfer the land. He relied on the CDR records to establish a nexus between the applicant and Sachin Raut, and argued that the scale of the fraud, involving forged Aadhaar and PAN cards, indicates a high risk of witness tampering and evidence destruction if bail is granted.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations but emphasized that the stage of the proceedings is critical. The investigation is complete, the charge sheet is filed, and the accused has been in custody for over four months. The Court noted that while the prosecution’s narrative is plausible, the evidentiary foundation is weak.
"Even for the offences registered against the applicant, maximum punishment provided is of seven years. The applicant is in jail since 20/11/2025. Considering the nature of material collected by the investigating officer and the fact that the investigation is already over and charge sheet is filed, I am inclined to grant bail."
The Court held that the confessional statement of Sandeep Jadhav, not recorded under Section 164 CrPC, is inadmissible as evidence under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. The CDR records, while suggestive, do not constitute direct or corroborative evidence of conspiracy or participation in forgery. The Court further observed that the discharge of Anup Jaiswal in Crime No. 107/2025 undermines the prosecution’s claim of a premeditated conspiracy to frame him.
The Court applied the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, particularly where the accused is not a flight risk and the investigation is complete. The Court found no material to suggest the applicant would interfere with witnesses or destroy evidence, especially since the charge sheet is already filed and the prosecution has all evidence in its possession.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Court granted regular bail in Crime No. 233/2025. The applicant shall be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of like amount. He shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses, shall provide his residential address and mobile number to the investigating officer, shall not change residence without prior intimation, and shall attend all trial dates. Failure to comply with two consecutive court dates or any condition shall render bail liable for cancellation.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Circumstantial Evidence Alone Cannot Justify Denial of Bail
- Practitioners must argue that where investigation is complete and charge sheet filed, mere suspicion or indirect links (e.g., call records) are insufficient to deny bail.
- Courts must distinguish between plausible narratives and legally admissible proof when assessing bail risk.
Inadmissible Confessions Carry No Weight in Bail Decisions
- Confessional statements not recorded under Section 164 CrPC are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and cannot be used to oppose bail.
- Prosecution must rely on independent, corroborative evidence to justify continued custody.
Maximum Punishment and Custody Duration Are Critical Factors
- Offences carrying a maximum sentence of up to seven years are generally bailable under Section 436 CrPC.
- Prolonged pre-trial detention without strong evidentiary support triggers the presumption in favor of bail.
- Courts must balance public interest against the accused’s right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
