Bail Order Set Aside for Ignoring Material Evidence

The Supreme Court set aside an Allahabad High Court order granting bail in a murder case, holding that the High Court had failed to consider material facts and circumstances before enlarging the accused on bail.

The appeal arose from FIR No. 118 of 2025 registered at Police Station Chhata, District Mathura, under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Arms Act, 1959. The prosecution case was that on 8 March 2025, the accused, along with two co-accused, surrounded the deceased while he was going to his agricultural field and fired multiple shots, causing his death. The accused was named in the FIR with a direct overt act attributed to him.

The record also showed that a country-made .315 bore pistol and a spent cartridge were recovered at the instance of the accused during investigation. The post-mortem report recorded ante-mortem firearm injuries, including entry and exit wounds with blackening and tattooing, and the forensic opinion linked the death to shock and haemorrhage from firearm injury. Witness statements recorded under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, including those of the informant, the deceased’s wife, the deceased’s brother, and another witness, also prima facie supported the prosecution case.

The High Court had granted bail mainly on the ground that the informant and another panch witness had not made allegations against the accused during inquest proceedings. The Supreme Court held that this approach was legally flawed. It reiterated that inquest proceedings under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, now corresponding to Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, are only a preliminary inquiry to ascertain the apparent cause of death. They are not meant to record a detailed account of the incident or identify the assailants.

Relying on earlier decisions, the Court held that omission to name the accused in the inquest could not by itself displace other material evidence. Since the FIR, recovery, post-mortem findings, and witness statements all required consideration, the High Court’s order was found to be cryptic, non-speaking, and passed without proper application of mind.

The Supreme Court therefore set aside the bail order and remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration. It also directed the accused to surrender within one week and remain in judicial custody until the High Court decides the bail application again.

Practical takeaway: In serious offences, a bail order must engage with the FIR, medical evidence, recovery, and witness material, not just omissions in the inquest.