In a significant ruling on anticipatory bail, the Bombay High Court has underscored that custodial interrogation cannot be justified merely on the basis of a co-accused's statement when no direct evidence links the applicant to the crime. The judgment clarifies the threshold for denying bail under Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3 read with 25 of the Arms Act, emphasizing that antecedents alone are insufficient to deny relief.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Akash Santosh Khomane, sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in C.R. No. 252 of 2026 registered with Daund Police Station, Pune. The case involved offences under Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3 read with 25 of the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that the applicant sold a pistol and live cartridges to a co-accused, Vaibhav Shinde, who was apprehended by the police.
Key Facts
- 15.06.2026: Co-accused Vaibhav Shinde was apprehended by Daund Police Station with one pistol and three live cartridges
- 15.06.2026: FIR (C.R. No. 252 of 2026) registered against the applicant based on the co-accused's statement
- The applicant was not present at the incident spot, and his role was alleged solely on the co-accused's statement
- The prosecution contended that the applicant had antecedents and sold the firearm to the co-accused
Procedural History
- 29.06.2026: Anticipatory Bail Application (No. 1424 of 2026) filed before the Bombay High Court
- 29.06.2026: Hearing conducted; arguments presented by both parties
Relief Sought
The applicant sought anticipatory bail, arguing that custodial interrogation was unnecessary as no direct evidence linked him to the crime.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether anticipatory bail could be denied under Section 3(5) B.N.S. and Section 3 r/w 25 of the Arms Act when the applicant's role was alleged solely on the basis of a co-accused's statement, without direct evidence or presence at the crime scene.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
- The applicant's name was mentioned in the FIR solely on the co-accused's statement, and he was not present at the incident spot
- Custodial interrogation was not required to prove his role in the crime, as no direct evidence linked him to the offence
- Reliance was placed on the principle that bail should not be denied without sufficient evidence
For the Respondent-State
- The applicant had antecedents, and the firearm found in the co-accused's possession was allegedly sold by the applicant
- Custodial interrogation was necessary to establish the applicant's role in the crime
- The prosecution argued that the applicant's involvement could not be ruled out without further investigation
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the evidentiary basis for the applicant's alleged involvement in the crime. It noted that the applicant's name was mentioned in the FIR solely on the co-accused's statement, and there was no direct evidence linking him to the offence. The Court observed:
"To prove the role of the Applicant in crime, evidence is required. Considering these facts, custodial interrogation of the Applicant is not required."
The Court further emphasized that antecedents alone cannot justify denial of bail, particularly when the applicant's role is not directly established. The judgment aligns with the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, especially in cases where custodial interrogation is not warranted.
The Verdict
The Bombay High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application with the following directions:
- The applicant shall be enlarged on bail in the event of arrest, on executing a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond of Rs. 30,000 with one or two sureties in the like amount
- The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when required
- The observations in the order are confined to the bail proceedings and shall not influence the trial court's decision on merits
What This Means For Similar Cases
Custodial Interrogation Must Be Justified by Evidence
- Courts will not grant custodial interrogation merely on the basis of a co-accused's statement without direct evidence linking the applicant to the crime
- Practitioners must argue that antecedents alone are insufficient to deny anticipatory bail, especially when the applicant's role is not directly established
Bail Is the Rule, Not the Exception
- The judgment reinforces the principle that bail should be granted unless there are compelling reasons to deny it
- Section 3(5) B.N.S. and Section 25 of the Arms Act do not automatically justify denial of bail without evidence of direct involvement
Trial Courts Must Decide Cases Uninfluenced by Bail Orders
- Observations made during bail proceedings shall not influence the trial court's decision on merits
- Trial courts must independently evaluate evidence without being prejudiced by interim orders in bail applications
