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.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO._______OF 2026
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 4240 of 2026)
BHAGAT SINGH Vs THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
AND ANR.
Dated: MAY 22, 2026.
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
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment