Co-Accused's Disclosure Statements Without Recovery Prima Facie Hit By Section 23 BSA: P&H High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to a man accused of supplying a countrymade pistol allegedly used in a jewellery shop dacoity, observing that the disclosure statements of co-accused, recorded in police custody and not leading to any recovery or discovery of fact, prima facie attracted Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA). [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 265]Justice...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to a man accused of supplying a countrymade pistol allegedly used in a jewellery shop dacoity, observing that the disclosure statements of co-accused, recorded in police custody and not leading to any recovery or discovery of fact, prima facie attracted Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA). [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 265]
Justice Surya Partap Singh allowed the petitioner's second bail plea, noting that he had been in custody for more than eight months, there was nothing on record to show his presence at the spot or participation in the conspiracy, and the co-accused had already been granted bail.
The Court noted that a question arose over both the admissibility and the credibility of the disclosure statements, they having been recorded when the co-accused were in police custody, and that since no incriminating material was recovered pursuant to them, they were prima facie hit by Section 23 BSA.
FIR was registered at Police Station Sector-8, District Faridabad, under Sections 310(2), 311, 61(2) and 238(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 25 and 25(8) of the Arms Act.
As per the complaint of one Vinay Jain, at about 10:36 a.m., while his staff was cleaning his shop after opening, four boys arrived, one wearing a helmet and three with muffled faces of whom two were armed with countrymade pistols and one with a knife.
They are alleged to have robbed him at gunpoint of 10 kg of silver, Rs. 2 lakh in cash, 50 grams of gold and 350 gems. The complainant stated that he had resisted and, while punching the face of one assailant, had been able to see his face and would be able to identify him.
The prosecution case against the petitioner is that he was the person who supplied the countrymade pistol used in the commission of the offence. His first bail petition had been dismissed as withdrawn on 12.02.2026.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had been in custody since his arrest on 07.11.2025, that he was not present at the spot, that the only role attributed to him was the supply of the countrymade pistol to the co-accused, that nothing remained to be recovered from him, and that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future.
The State counsel, while conceding that the petitioner was not an active participant in the incident of dacoity, contended that he had provided support to the main accused and that the role attributed to him was serious. It was further submitted that the petitioner did not have clean antecedents, as he was already facing prosecution in six other cases.
The Court recorded that no custody certificate and no formal reply had been filed by the State, which had opposed the petition orally.
After hearing the submissions, the Court noted the the sole allegation was of having supplied the weapon; the absence of material showing the petitioner's presence at the spot or participation in the conspiracy.
It further pointed that the the grant of bail to co-accused, the infirmity attaching to the disclosure statements and the completion of investigation, leaving nothing to be recovered.
The improbability of an early conclusion of trial and the absence of any material suggesting that the petitioner would tamper with evidence, influence witnesses or fail to cooperate in the trial.
Justice Singh relied on Dataram v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2018 (2) RCR (Criminal) 131, in which the Supreme Court reiterated the presumption of innocence and the principle that grant of bail is the rule and incarceration the exception, and observed that these basic principles appeared at times to have been lost sight of, resulting in more people being imprisoned for longer periods.
The Court also relied on Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51, where the Supreme Court cautioned against allowing the low rate of conviction to influence bail adjudication in a negative sense, observing that consideration of a bail application cannot be mixed up with a possible adjudication at trial, and that an ultimate acquittal after continued custody would amount to grave injustice.
Holding that the cumulative effect of these factors entitled the petitioner to bail, and without commenting on the merits, the Court ordered his release on furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Appearance: Mr. Saleem Ahmed, Advocate, for the petitioner;
Ms. Deepali Verma, Asst. A.G., Haryana