Inquest proceedings are limited to identifying the apparent cause of death and do not require exhaustive details of the crime. Relying solely on the absence of information in an inquest report to grant bail, while ignoring substantive incriminating evidence, constitutes a failure of judicial discretion and non-application of mind.

ORDER :

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 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[Punishment for murder – (1) Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine], 352²[Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace.], 351(2)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.], 3(5)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.] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 5⁵[Licence for manufacture, sale, etc., of arms and ammunition.], 25⁶[Punishment for certain offences.] and 27⁷[Punishment for using arms, etc.] of the Arms Act, 1959.

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 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 Appell