Whether the court should release accused prosecuted for grave offence if his name is not mentioned in inquest report?

1. Leave granted.

2. The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by

Bhagat Singh (hereinafter referred to as “the Appellant”),

who is the nephew of the deceased Bharat Singh alias

Page 2 of 11

Pappu, and the informant in the present case, challenging

the order dated 22nd January, 2026 (hereinafter referred to

as the “impugned order”), passed by the High Court of

Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail

Application No. 2223 of 2026, by which the Respondent No.

2 – Accused No.1, Kunwarpal Singh, was released on bail.

3. The Respondent No. 2 along with two co-accused

persons is alleged to have committed the murder of the

Appellant’s uncle and is arrayed as Accused No. 1 in FIR No.

118 of 2025 registered at Police Station Chhata, District

Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, for offences punishable 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.

1 Punishment for murder – (1) Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or

imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

2 Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace.

3 Criminal Intimidation – …(2) Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall

be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two

years, or with fine, or with both.

4 General explanations – …(5) When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance

of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner

as if it were done by him alone.

5 Licence for manufacture, sale, etc., of arms and ammunition.

6 Punishment for certain offences.

7 Punishment for using arms, etc.

Page 3 of 11

4. The case of the Prosecution, briefly, is that on 8th

March, 2025, at about 10:30 a.m., when the Appellant and

his deceased uncle Bharat Singh alias Pappu were

proceeding towards their agricultural field, the Respondent

No. 2 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.

Consequently, FIR No. 118 of 2025 came to be registered on

the same day at about 6:32 p.m. after the completion of the

inquest and the post-mortem, and Respondent No. 2 herein

was arrested on the following day, i.e., 9th March, 2025.

5. During the investigation pursuant to the disclosure

statement made by the Respondent No. 2 on the 9th March,

2025, a country-made .315 bore pistol along with a

spent/empty cartridge was recovered at his instance.

Thereafter, upon completion of the investigation,

Chargesheet No. 1 of 2025 dated 29th May, 2025 was filed.

6. In such circumstances, the Respondent No. 2-

Accused No. 1 filed a Bail Application No. 3591/2025 before

the Court of Sessions Judge, Mathura, who, vide a detailed

Page 4 of 11

order dated 26th September, 2025, rejected the same upon

due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the

case, the gravity of the offence, post-mortem report and the

recovery of the murder weapon at his instance.

7. As the Trial Court declined to enlarge the

Respondent No. 1 on regular bail, he approached the High

Court and prayed for the grant of bail by way of Criminal

Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2223 of 2026. By the

impugned order dated 22nd January, 2026, the High Court

allowed the said bail application, observing inter alia that the

informant, i.e., the Appellant and Shivcharan (brother of the

deceased), who were Panch Witnesses, had not made any

allegation against the Respondent No. 2 herein at the stage

of inquest proceedings, and holding that, “prima facie” it is

a fit case to release the applicant, viz., Respondent No. 2 on

bail.

8. Before this Court, assailing the impugned order, the

Appellant contends that the High Court has passed a

cryptic, non-speaking and unreasoned order without

adverting to the material facts, records and circumstances

Page 5 of 11

of the case, thereby rendering the impugned order perverse

and unsustainable in law.

9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the

parties and upon perusal of the material placed on record,

we are persuaded to accept the submissions advanced on

behalf of the Appellant. The impugned order, in our

considered opinion, suffers from non-application of mind

and is cryptic and bereft of substantial reasoning or analysis

of the material particulars.

10. At the outset, it may be noted that Respondent No. 2

has been specifically named in the FIR with a direct overt

act attributed to him of firing upon the deceased. The postmortem

report, which records 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.

11. Further, the record also reveals that the alleged

murder weapon, namely a .315 bore country-made pistol

along with a spent cartridge, was recovered at the instance

of Respondent No. 2, from his uncle’s room, during the

Page 6 of 11

investigation. The statements of the witnesses recorded

under Section 1808 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023, including those of the Appellant, Savitri (wife

of the deceased), Shivcharan alias Shiboo (brother of the

deceased), and Sunil Kumar, also prima facie support the

allegation against the Respondent No. 2 of his involvement

in the alleged crime.

12. One of the reasons assigned by the High Court in

enlarging the Respondent No.2 on bail is the absence of

allegations in the inquest proceedings by the two Panch

witnesses. It is well settled that the scope of an inquiry

under Section 1749 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,

now corresponding to Section 19410 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. In this regard, a reference may

8 Examination of witnesses by police.

9 Police to enquire and report on suicide, etc.

10 Police to enquire and report on suicide, etc.

be made to the decision of this Court in Pedda Narayana v.

State of A.P. (1975) 4 SCC 153., wherein it was held as follows:

“11. A perusal of this provision would clearly show that

the object of the proceedings under Section 174 is merely

to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious

circumstances or an unnatural death and if so what is

the apparent cause of the death. The question regarding

the details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who

assaulted him or under what circumstances he was

assaulted appears to us to be foreign to the ambit and

scope of the proceedings under Section 174. In these

circumstances, therefore, neither in practice nor in law

was it necessary for the police to have mentioned these

details in the inquest report…”

13. Similarly, this Court, while discussing the purpose

and scope of Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973, in Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh (2003) 2 SCC 518., observed as under:

“12. The High Court has also held that the details about

the occurrence were not mentioned in the inquest report

which showed that the investigating officer was not sure

of the facts when the inquest report was prepared and

this feature of the case carried weight in favour of the

accused. We are unable to accept this reasoning of the

High Court. The provision for holding of an inquest and

preparing an inquest report is contained in Section 174

CrPC. The heading of the section is “Police to enquire

and report on suicide etc.” Sub-section (1) of this

section provides that when the officer in charge of a police

station or some other police officer specially empowered

by the State Government in that behalf receives

information that a person has committed suicide, or has

been killed by another or by an animal or by machinery

or by an accident, or has died under circumstances

raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person

has committed an offence, he shall immediately give

information to the nearest Executive Magistrate and shall

proceed to the place where the body of such deceased

person is, and there, in the presence of two or more

respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood, shall make

an investigation, and draw up a report of the apparent

cause of death describing such wounds, fractures,

bruises, and other marks of injury as may be found on

the body and stating in what manner, or by what weapon

or instrument (if any), such marks appear to have been

inflicted. The requirement of the section is that the police

officer shall record the apparent cause of death

describing the wounds as may be found on the body and

also the weapon or instrument by which they appear to

have been inflicted and this has to be done in the

presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the

neighbourhood. The section does not contemplate that the

manner in which the incident took place or the names of

the accused should be mentioned in the inquest report.

The basic purpose of holding an inquest is to report

regarding the apparent cause of death, namely, whether

it is suicidal, homicidal, accidental or by some machinery

etc.”

14. 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. 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.

15. Even assuming that the High Court could have taken

into consideration the non-mentioning of Respondent No. 2

during the inquest proceedings, the same could not have

been viewed in isolation while ignoring the other materials

collected during the investigation. The specific overt act

attributed to Respondent No. 2 in the FIR, the chargesheet,

the post-mortem report corroborating the prosecution’s

version, the recovery of the alleged weapon at the instance

of Respondent No. 2, 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. In our

considered view, the aforesaid materials, which prima facie

implicate Respondent No. 2, could not have been brushed

aside solely on account of the alleged omission during the

inquest proceedings.

16. In view of the above discussion, and having regard to

the material placed on record, we are, therefore, of the

considered view that the High Court, while enlarging

Respondent No. 2 on bail, failed to take into consideration

the material facts and circumstances of the case and

assigned reasons which are not in consonance with the

settled principles governing the grant of bail, especially, in

serious offences.

17. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22nd

January, 2026, passed by the High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2223 of

2026 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the High

Court for fresh consideration of the aforesaid bail

application of Respondent No. 2 in accordance with the law.

18. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion

on the merits of the case, and the High Court shall consider

the matter independently and in accordance with the law.

Respondent No. 2 is directed to surrender within 1 week to

the concerned jail authorities and shall remain in judicial

custody till appropriate order is passed by the High Court

on reconsideration of the bail application.

19. The Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending

application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

.……..……………J.

(SANJAY KAROL)

……..…………..….……………….………J.

(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)

NEW DELHI;

MAY 22, 2026