Murder Accused Cannot Get Bail Only Because His Name Was Missing From the Inquest Report

Summary: The appellant, nephew of the deceased Bharat Singh alias Pappu and informant in the case, challenged the Allahabad High Court’s order granting bail to Respondent No. 2, Kunwarpal Singh, who was accused of murdering the deceased along with two co-accused persons. The prosecution alleged that on 08.03.2025, the accused persons emerged from concealment with country-made pistols, surrounded the deceased and fired multiple shots at him, causing his instantaneous death. Respondent No. 2 was specifically named in the FIR with a direct role of firing upon the deceased, and a .315 bore country-made pistol with a spent cartridge was recovered at his instance. The Sessions Court had rejected bail after considering the gravity of the offence, post-mortem report and weapon recovery. However, the High Court granted bail mainly because the informant and another panch witness had not made allegations against Respondent No. 2 during inquest proceedings. The Supreme Court found this reasoning legally unsustainable, holding that the High Court ignored material circumstances such as the FIR, firearm injuries, weapon recovery and statements recorded under Section 180 BNSS.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Allahabad High Court’s order dated 22.01.2026 granting bail to Respondent No. 2, and remanded the bail application to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the criminal case and directed the High Court to decide the matter independently. Respondent No. 2 was directed to surrender within one week before the concerned jail authorities and remain in judicial custody until the High Court passes an appropriate order on reconsideration of his bail application. Pending applications were disposed of.