High Court Reaffirms That Absence of Material Evidence Beyond Suspicion Mandates Bail; Persuasive Authority for Subordinate Courts
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | B.A./6225/2025 of NISHI PANDEY Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND |
| CNR | JHHC010216662025 |
| Date of Registration | 10-07-2025 |
| Decision Date | 18-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Allowed |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath |
| Court | High Court of Jharkhand |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Persuasive |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Arms Act, 1959) |
| Questions of Law | Whether mere suspicion without material evidence can justify denial of bail under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court held that suspicion, unaccompanied by concrete material or proof, is insufficient to deny bail. Inherent powers and the presumption of innocence under the Code demand that an accused be enlarged when only speculative grounds exist. The court emphasised that bail is the rule and custody an exception, especially where no substantive evidence links the accused to the offence. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | In Chainpur P.S. Case No. 03/2025, the petitioner was suspected of conspiring to murder two persons; no direct evidence tied her to the crime scene or planning. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Jharkhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and trial courts dealing with bail under the 2023 Code |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that mere suspicion without supporting material evidence cannot justify continued detention.
- Applies the principle that bail is the rule and custody the exception under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Demonstrates the court’s willingness to grant bail when the prosecution record lacks substantive proof.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Identification of the offences registered under sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 332(a), 109, 103(1), 61(2), 111(2)(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and section 27 Arms Act, 1959.
- Acknowledgement that the sole basis for detention was suspicion of conspiracy, without corroborative material.
- Emphasis on the presumption of innocence and the rule that bail is the norm, particularly where no concrete evidence exists.
- Conclusion that in the absence of material implicating the petitioner, bail must be granted on furnishing appropriate bonds and sureties.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Only suspicion connects her to the alleged conspiracy.
- No material evidence on record linking her to the offence.
State (Opposite Party)
- Opposed bail despite lack of material, relying on gravity of the offence and pending investigation.
Factual Background
- FIR lodged in Chainpur P.S. Case No. 03 of 2025 for alleged conspiracy in the murders of two individuals on 06-01-2025 in village Garda.
- Petitioner named as an accused based solely on suspicion of involvement in planning the murders.
- No forensic, eyewitness, or documentary evidence placed the petitioner at the scene or in communication regarding the crime.
- Bail application filed before the High Court after cognizance by the trial court.
Statutory Analysis
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 332(a), 109, 103(1), 61(2), 111(2)(b) invoked—no interpretation delivered beyond recognising charge.
- Arms Act, 1959: Section 27 invoked—no specific statutory test applied, treated pari passu with other offences for bail purposes.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
Citations
- Neutral Citation: (2025: JHHC:24020)
- Chainpur P.S. Case No. 03/2025
- Paragraph reference: Order dated 18-08-2025, para. 2–6.