The Supreme Court has set aside an Allahabad High Court order granting bail to an accused in a murder case from Mathura, Uttar Pradesh.
The Court held that the High Court ignored key evidence and passed a “cryptic, non-speaking and unreasoned order” while granting bail.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh passed the order in Bhagat Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. on May 22, 2026.
The appeal was filed by Bhagat Singh, nephew of the deceased Bharat Singh alias Pappu and the informant in the case.
FIR Alleged Accused Fired Multiple Shots
According to the prosecution, the incident took place on March 8, 2025, at around 10:30 a.m.
The appellant and his uncle Bharat Singh alias Pappu were heading towards their agricultural field when Respondent No. 2, Kunwarpal Singh, and two co-accused allegedly emerged from concealment with country-made pistols.
The accused allegedly surrounded the deceased and fired multiple shots, causing his death on the spot.
Police registered FIR No. 118 of 2025 later that evening under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Arms Act, 1959.
Authorities arrested Respondent No. 2 on March 9, 2025.
Investigation Revealed Weapon Recovery
During investigation, police allegedly recovered a country-made .315 bore pistol and a spent cartridge based on the accused’s disclosure statement.
Investigators later filed the chargesheet on May 29, 2025.
The Sessions Judge, Mathura rejected the accused’s bail plea on September 26, 2025 after considering the seriousness of the allegations, the post-mortem report and the weapon recovery.
However, the Allahabad High Court later granted bail on January 22, 2026.
Supreme Court Finds High Court Order Defective
The Supreme Court found serious flaws in the High Court’s reasoning.
The Bench observed that the High Court failed to properly examine material evidence before granting bail.
The Court noted that the FIR specifically named Respondent No. 2 and directly accused him of firing at the deceased.
The post-mortem report also recorded firearm injuries, including entry and exit wounds, blackening and tattooing.
Doctors opined that firearm injuries caused the victim’s death due to shock and haemorrhage.
The Bench further noted that witness statements recorded under Section 180 BNSS prima facie supported the prosecution case.
Court Clarifies Scope Of Inquest Proceedings
The High Court had relied on the fact that witnesses did not name the accused during inquest proceedings.
The Supreme Court rejected this reasoning.
The Bench clarified that the purpose of an inquest under Section 194 BNSS is limited to finding the apparent cause of death.
It does not require witnesses to identify the accused or narrate the entire incident.
The Court relied on earlier judgments in Pedda Narayana v. State of A.P. and Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh.
The Bench reiterated that failure to mention an accused in the inquest report cannot by itself weaken the prosecution case.
Bail Order Set Aside
The Supreme Court held that the High Court ignored crucial circumstances, including the FIR allegations, witness statements, post-mortem findings and weapon recovery.
The Court concluded that the bail order did not follow settled legal principles governing serious offences.
Accordingly, the Bench set aside the Allahabad High Court’s bail order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
The Court directed Respondent No. 2 to surrender before jail authorities within one week.
The accused will remain in judicial custody until the High Court reconsiders the bail application.
