An inquest report under S.174 CrPC/S.194 BNSS is confined to ascertaining the apparent cause of death, and omission to name the accused therein cannot by itself justify grant of bail in a murder case.

on

Facts

The appellant, nephew of the deceased Bharat Singh alias Pappu, challenged the Allahabad High Court’s order granting bail to Respondent No. 2, who was accused of murdering the deceased along with two co-accused persons.

According to the prosecution, on 8 March 2025, while the appellant and the deceased were proceeding towards their agricultural field, the accused persons emerged armed with country-made pistols and fired multiple shots at the deceased, resulting in his death. FIR No. 118 of 2025 was registered for offences under S.103(1) BNS, S.352 BNS, S.351(2) BNS, S.3(5) BNS, and relevant provisions of the Arms Act.

During investigation, a .315 bore country-made pistol and an empty cartridge were recovered at the instance of Respondent No. 2. The Sessions Court rejected his bail application considering the gravity of the offence, post-mortem report, and weapon recovery. However, the High Court granted bail primarily on the ground that the informant and another Panch witness did not name the accused during the inquest proceedings.

Issues Framed

Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail by relying upon the absence of allegations against the accused in the inquest proceedings.

Court’s Reasoning

(a) The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s order was “cryptic, non-speaking and unreasoned” and reflected non-application of mind. (Para 9)

(b) The Court observed that the accused was specifically named in the FIR with a direct overt act attributed to him. The post-mortem report corroborated the prosecution case by recording firearm injuries, blackening, tattooing, and death due to shock and haemorrhage. (Paras 10–11)

(c) The Court further noted that the alleged murder weapon was recovered at the instance of the accused and witness statements recorded under S.180 BNSS prima facie supported his involvement. (Para 11)

(d) Interpreting the scope of inquest proceedings under S.174 CrPC (now S.194 BNSS), the Court reiterated that an inquest is only a preliminary enquiry to ascertain the apparent cause of death. It does not require recording details of the incident or names of the accused. Reliance was placed on Pedda Narayana v. State of A.P. and Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh. (Paras 12–13)

(e) The Court held that the High Court erred in drawing an adverse inference merely because the accused was not named during the inquest proceedings. Such omission could not outweigh the FIR, post-mortem findings, recovery of weapon, and witness statements collected during investigation. (Paras 14–15)

(f) The Court emphasised that though judicial discretion in bail matters is wide, it must be exercised judiciously and in accordance with settled principles, particularly in serious offences like murder. (Para 14)

Held

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail and remanded the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Respondent No. 2 was directed to surrender within one week and remain in judicial custody until reconsideration of the bail application.

Ratio

An inquest under S.174 CrPC/S.194 BNSS is limited to determining the apparent cause of death, and omission to mention the accused therein cannot, by itself, justify grant of bail when other material prima facie implicates the accused. (Paras 12–15)

Case Details

Citation: 2026 INSC 527
Decided on: 22 May 2026
Case Title: Bhagat Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Sanjay Karol, J.; Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.