The Rajasthan High Court has reaffirmed that bail cannot be denied solely on the gravity of the offence when the prosecution’s case lacks conclusive evidence and there is no real risk of witness tampering or flight. This decision underscores the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, particularly where the evidence against the accused is circumstantial and inconclusive.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Babulal S/o Shri Narsiram, aged 41, was arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 33/2024 registered at Police Station Jasrasar, District Bikaner, for offences under Sections 302, 427, 506, and 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case arises from an alleged assault on 23.02.2024, during which the deceased, Munni Ram, sustained grievous injuries and later died. The complainant, Premchand, alleged that the petitioner and five other individuals - Kapil, Ashok, Rakesh, Surja Ram, and Dinesh - attacked him and the deceased with blunt weapons such as lathis and sariya.
Key Facts
- The incident occurred on 23.02.2024 near an agricultural field in Jasrasar, District Bikaner.
- The complainant named six individuals in the FIR as assailants.
- The police investigation led to the filing of a charge-sheet only against the petitioner, Dinesh, and Kapil; the other named accused - Ashok, Rakesh, and Surja Ram - were not included.
- No weapon allegedly used in the offence was recovered from the petitioner.
- CCTV footage was recovered during investigation, which prima facie showed the presence of co-accused Kapil and Dinesh at the scene, but did not conclusively establish the presence of the petitioner.
- The complainant’s protest petition challenging the non-inclusion of certain accused was rejected by the competent criminal court.
- The petitioner has been in judicial custody since arrest.
- The complainant’s statement has already been recorded before the trial court.
Procedural History
- 23.02.2024: Alleged incident of assault and murder.
- 24.02.2024: F.I.R. No. 33/2024 registered at Police Station Jasrasar.
- Date unspecified: Investigation conducted, CCTV footage analyzed.
- Date unspecified: Charge-sheet filed against petitioner, Dinesh, and Kapil only.
- Date unspecified: Complainant filed protest petition; rejected by trial court.
- Date unspecified: Petitioner arrested and lodged in Sub-Jail Nokha.
- 08.05.2026: Second bail application filed under Section 483 BNSS before the High Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought bail on the grounds that he was falsely implicated, no weapon was recovered from him, CCTV footage did not conclusively place him at the scene, and there was no risk of influencing witnesses or absconding.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the petitioner, accused of a non-bailable offence under Section 302 IPC, is entitled to bail under Section 483 BNSS where the prosecution’s evidence is inconclusive, no weapon was recovered, and there is no demonstrated risk of witness tampering or flight.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the petitioner was falsely implicated, as the police investigation did not corroborate the complainant’s version against him. The CCTV footage did not conclusively establish his presence at the scene. No weapon was recovered from him. The trial is likely to take considerable time, and he has been in custody since arrest. There is no apprehension of influencing witnesses, as the complainant’s statement has already been recorded. Reliance was placed on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish to argue that bail should be granted where the evidence is not overwhelming.
For the Respondent
The Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant opposed bail, contending that the offence under Section 302 IPC is grave and that the petitioner’s involvement, though not fully proven, cannot be ignored. They argued that granting bail in such cases may undermine public confidence and encourage impunity. However, they did not point to any specific risk of the petitioner absconding or tampering with evidence.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the evidence against the petitioner and found that the prosecution’s case rests on the complainant’s uncorroborated version, which was itself partially rejected by the investigating agency. The charge-sheet was filed against only three of the six named accused, indicating the police’s own assessment that the complainant’s account was not fully reliable. The Court noted that the CCTV footage, while showing the presence of two co-accused, did not conclusively place the petitioner at the scene. Crucially, no weapon was recovered from him.
"This Court further finds that no blunt weapon allegedly used in the commission of the offence has been recovered at the instance of the present petitioner. Moreover, the analysis of the CCTV footage available on record does not conclusively establish the presence of the petitioner at the place of occurrence."
The Court emphasized that the complainant’s statement had already been recorded, eliminating any realistic risk of witness tampering. The Public Prosecutor failed to identify any specific threat of the petitioner influencing other witnesses or absconding. The Court held that the gravity of the offence alone cannot override the absence of concrete evidence or demonstrable risk. The principles laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish were applied to reinforce that bail must be granted where the conditions for denial are not met.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The High Court allowed the second bail application under Section 483 BNSS and directed the release of Babulal S/o Shri Narsiram on bail, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each, to the satisfaction of the trial court. He must appear before the trial court on every hearing date and whenever called upon until the conclusion of the trial. The Court clarified that its observations were strictly for the purpose of bail adjudication and shall not prejudice the trial court’s evaluation of the merits.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Bail Cannot Be Denied Solely on Gravity of Offence
- Practitioners must argue that gravity of offence under Section 302 IPC does not automatically disqualify bail under Section 483 BNSS.
- Courts must assess the strength of evidence, not merely the nature of the charge.
- Where the prosecution’s case is circumstantial and lacks corroboration, bail becomes a viable option.
Absence of Physical Evidence Supports Bail
- Failure to recover weapons or other incriminating material from the accused is a material factor in bail applications.
- CCTV footage that is inconclusive or partial must be weighed against the presumption of innocence.
- The burden is on the prosecution to demonstrate specific risks of flight or tampering - not on the accused to prove their innocence.
Recorded Statements Eliminate Tampering Risk
- Once the complainant’s statement is recorded under Section 161 CrPC or before the trial court, the risk of influencing testimony is substantially reduced.
- This is a decisive factor in favour of bail, even in serious cases.
- Advocates should highlight this procedural milestone in bail hearings to counter opposition arguments.
