The gravest charge in the Penal Code does not by itself decide a bail application; the material against the individual accused does. On 17 September 2026, Justice Arun Kumar Jha of the High Court of Judicature at Patna granted regular bail in Suraj Mahato v. State of Bihar, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 58389 of 2026, a case invoking Sections 363, 365, 364, 302, 201 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code — the abduction and murder of a minor girl whose remains were recovered from a pond. The court found that, as against this petitioner, the record disclosed a lack of substantive material, and that custody since 29 April 2026 with a clean criminal history could not be prolonged on the strength of the charge alone.
The case against the petitioner
The prosecution alleged that the informant's minor daughter was abducted and done to death, her body concealed and later recovered from a pond. The motive was traced to earlier disputes — unpaid settlement money and a subsequent assault — and the petitioner was arrayed with co-accused under a canopy of sections: kidnapping and abduction (Sections 363, 365 and 364), murder (Section 302), causing disappearance of evidence (Section 201) and criminal conspiracy (Section 120B), with Section 34 supplying common intention. The petitioner sought regular bail under the jurisdiction now found in Section 480 of the BNSS, having been in custody since 29 April 2026.
The court's assessment
The State opposed release on the gravity of the offence — the murder of a child. The court's answer was to test the record for what it actually said about this petitioner, and to find it wanting: no substantive material connecting him to the occurrence emerged beyond the collective accusation. Coupled with the period of custody already undergone and the absence of any criminal antecedent, the balance settled in favour of liberty pending trial.
The conditions were tailored to the seriousness of the case: a bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties, one of whom must be a close relative; mandatory appearance; and automatic exposure to cancellation upon three consecutive absences or breach of any term.
Individualised scrutiny in multi-accused cases
The order belongs to a consistent line of bail jurisprudence: in multi-accused prosecutions, the court's duty is to individualise. Conspiracy and common-intention provisions serve an essential function at trial, but at the bail stage they cannot become a substitute for material against the particular applicant. The questions a bail court asks are concrete. Who names this accused, and with what act? What was recovered from him or at his instance? What does the motive evidence say about him, as opposed to the group? An applicant against whom the answers are empty stands differently from a co-accused caught on an eyewitness account or a recovery — and orders granting or refusing bail in the same case to different accused routinely diverge for exactly this reason.
Gravity, custody and the presumption of innocence
Courts never treat the death of a child as anything but what it is. The point of orders like this one is narrower and older than any single case: pre-trial detention is not punishment. Where the investigation is over, the material against the applicant is slender, and the trial will take its time, continued custody serves neither the investigation nor the eventual verdict — it only transfers punishment to a stage where guilt is unproven. The safeguards lie in conditions and in the standing threat of cancellation, which modern orders, like this one, build in expressly.
For the practitioner
Build the bail application around the record's silence: absence of eyewitness attribution, absence of recovery, absence of antecedents — each documented, not asserted.
State the custody period precisely and update it at hearing; time served is a fact that only grows.
Anticipate the gravity argument and answer it with the individualisation principle rather than minimising the offence.
Advise the client soberly on conditions: a close-relative surety and strict appearance terms are the price of liberty, and breach forfeits it swiftly.
The Delhi parallel
Bail applications under Section 483 BNSS before the Delhi Sessions Courts and the High Court of Delhi in murder cases follow the same architecture: gravity opens the inquiry, but attribution, recoveries, antecedents, custody and trial progress decide it. For offences after 1 July 2024, the corresponding BNS provisions are Section 103 (murder), Section 140 (kidnapping or abduction) and Section 61 (criminal conspiracy); the analysis is unchanged.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can bail be granted in a murder case?
Yes. Murder is non-bailable, which means bail is not a right — but it remains within the court's discretion. The court examines the specific material against the applicant: eyewitness accounts, recoveries, motive, conspiracy evidence. Where the connecting material is thin and the accused has clean antecedents, courts can and do grant bail notwithstanding the gravity of the charge.
What does "lack of substantive material" mean at the bail stage?
It means the record contains little that directly implicates the applicant — no eyewitness naming him with a role, no recovery at his instance, no confession admissible against him — leaving only the sweep of a conspiracy or common-intention allegation. Bail courts weigh this prima facie; it is not a finding of innocence.
What conditions were imposed here?
A bail bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties of the like amount, one surety being a close relative of the petitioner; regular appearance before the trial court; and cancellation of bail if the petitioner remains absent on three consecutive dates or breaches the conditions.
Why do courts require a close relative as surety?
A family-member surety ties the accused's appearance to a person with real influence over him and real exposure if he absconds. It is a common device in serious cases to strengthen the assurance of attendance without prolonging custody.