Non-Mention Of Accused In Inquest Report Does Not By Itself Suggest Innocence: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday (May 22) observed that mere omission to name the accused in the inquest proceedings would not be a ground to grant bail, when there exist other corroborative circumstances implying the prima facie involvement of the accused in the crime.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh set aside the Allahabad High Court's order granting bail to the Respondent No.2, who was accused of murder, on the ground that his name did not surface in the inquest proceedings.

Reiterating that in matters where grave accusations were labelled against the accused, the Courts need to exercise the judicial discretion sparingly and carefully, the bench noted that mere omission of the accused's name in the inquest proceedings was irrelevant when there exist other corroborative materials collected during the investigation.

The Court noted that “since 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”, therefore, “such corroborative 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.”

Background

The case arose after the inquest proceedings were initiated, pursuant to the registration of FIR, arraying the Respondent No.2, as the accused in connection with an alleged offence of murder. During the inquest proceedings, the name of the Respondent No.2 was omitted; however, due to the existence of other corroborative circumstances, such as the gravity of the offence, the post-mortem report, and the recovery of the murder weapon at the accused's instance, led to the denial of bail by the Sessions Court.

The accused then moved the High Court, which had allowed the application for the grant of bail, noting that an omission of naming the Respondent No.2 during the inquest proceedings gave rise to an adverse inference against the prosecution's case.

Against the High Court's order, the informant/complainant filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.

Decision

Allowing the plea, the Court said that the High Court erred in granting the bail, while ignoring the fact there existed other corroborative materials implying prima facie involvement of the Respondent No.2 in the crime.

The Court explained that inquest proceedings "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.”

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.”, the court added.

“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 court held.

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed, and Respondent No.2 was directed to surrender.

Headnote

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 194 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 174 – Scope and Purpose of Inquest Proceedings – Bail Parameters - The Supreme Court held that the scope of an inquiry under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. (now corresponding to Section 194 of the BNSS, 2023) is a preliminary enquiry of a limited and specific character, strictly confined to ascertaining the apparent cause of death - It is neither intended nor required to record a detailed account of the incident or register the names of the accused persons who might have caused the death - The High Court was not justified in drawing an adverse inference to grant bail to the accused merely because the informant and another panch witness had not made specific allegations against the accused during the inquest proceedings - Non-mention of the author of the crime in the inquest report cannot, by itself, be a valid reason to doubt the involvement of an accused who is subsequently named. [Relied on Pedda Narayana v. State of A.P., (1975) 4 SCC 153; Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 518; Paras 12-14]

Criminal Procedure – Grant of Bail – Judicial Discretion and Duty to Consider Material Evidence - The Supreme Court observed that while the judicial discretion to grant bail is wide, it must be exercised in a judicious, reasoned manner by adverting to the settled parameters, especially where accusations are grave - The High Court erred in isolating the omission in the inquest proceedings while completely ignoring vital material collected during the investigation - A specific overt act attributed to the accused in the FIR, the corroborative post-mortem report showing firearm injuries, the recovery of the weapon at the instance of the accused, and the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS, 2023 constitute material circumstances that cannot be brushed aside - Assigning reasons not in consonance with settled bail principles in serious offences renders the order unsustainable. [Paras 14-16]

Cause Title: BHAGAT SINGH VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 535

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Krishnan Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. R.c. Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Guruprasad Naik, Adv. Ms. Garima Sachdeva, Adv. Mr. Sidhant Saraswat, Adv. Mr. Aryan Panwar, Adv. Mr. Dcosta Ivo Manuel Simon, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shashank Shekhar Singh, AOR Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Singh, Adv. Mr. Kushagra Pandey, AOR Mr. Abhinav Raghuvanshi, Adv. Mr. Ved P. Singh, Adv.