While remanding a bail matter back to the Allahabad High Court, the Supreme Court has held that the non-mentioning of the author of the crime or the person who had caused the death in the inquest report cannot, by itself, be a reason to doubt the involvement of the accused, who may be subsequently named.

The Apex Court was considering a criminal appeal preferred by the nephew of the deceased, challenging the order passed by the Allahabad High Court in a Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application by which the Accused (second respondent) was released on bail.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held, “Thus, non-mentioning of the author of the crime or the person who had caused the death in the inquest report cannot, by itself, be a reason to doubt the involvement of the accused, who may be subsequently named. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in drawing an adverse inference merely because the informant-Appellant and another Panch witness had not made any allegations against the Respondent No. 2 at the stage of inquest proceedings.”

Advocate Krishnan Aggarwal represented the Appellant, while AOR Shashank Shekhar Singh represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The second Respondent, along with two co-accused persons, was alleged to have committed the murder of the Appellant’s uncle and was arrayed as an Accused in an FIR registered under Sections 103(1)1, 3522, 351(2)3, 3(5)4 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 55, 256 and 277 of the Arms Act, 1959. It was alleged that when the Appellant and his deceased uncle were proceeding towards their agricultural field, the second Respondent, along with two co-accused persons, emerged from concealment, armed with country-made pistols, surrounded the deceased, abused him, and thereafter, fired multiple shots at him, causing his instantaneous death.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the second Respondent had been specifically named in the FIR with a direct overt act attributed to him of firing upon the deceased. The postmortem report recorded ante-mortem firearm injuries, including entry and exit wounds with blackening and tattooing, with the forensic opinion that the death occurred due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from firearm injury.

It was noticed that the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 1808 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, including those of the Appellant, deceased’s wife and brother, also prima facie supported the allegation against the second Respondent of his involvement in the alleged crime.

Cosnidering that one of the reasons assigned by the High Court in enlarging the second Respondent on bail was the absence of allegations in the inquest proceedings by the two Panch witnesses, the Bench explained, “It is well settled that the scope of an inquiry under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, now corresponding to Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is a preliminary enquiry of a limited and specific character confined to ascertaining the apparent cause of death and not to record a detailed account of the incident or the names of the accused persons who could have caused the death.”

The Bench was of the view that the High Court was not justified in drawing an adverse inference merely because the informant-Appellant and another Panch witness had not made any allegations against the second Respondent at the stage of inquest proceedings. “The judicial discretion to grant bail, though undoubtedly wide, is nevertheless required to be exercised in a judicious and reasoned manner by adverting to the settled parameters governing the grant of bail, particularly where the accusations are grave in nature”, it added.

As per the Bench, the specific overt act attributed to the second Respondent in the FIR, the chargesheet, the post-mortem report corroborating the prosecution’s version, the recovery of the alleged weapon at his instance, as well as the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, constituted material circumstances which required due consideration.

Thus, setting aside the impugned order, the Bench remanded the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration of the aforesaid bail application of the second Respondent.

Cause Title: Bhagat Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 527)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Krishnan Aggarwal, R.C. Tiwari, Guruprasad Naik, Garima Sachdeva, AOR Dcosta Ivo Manuel Simon

Respondent: AOR Shashank Shekhar Singh, Advocates Abhinav Singh, Manish Kumar, AOR Kushagra Pandey, Advocates Ankita Gupta, Suvigya Awasthy, Abhinav Raghuvanshi, Ved P. Singh, Vivek Joshi

Click here to read/download Judgment


Justice Sanjay KarolJustice N. Kotiswar Singh

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.