Accused not being named in inquest report not enough for bail: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held that the mere absence of names of accused persons in inquest proceedings cannot, by itself, be a reason to doubt their involvement in the crime, as such proceedings are limited in scope.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh clarified that an inquest under Section 174 of the CrPC (now Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is a preliminary enquiry of a limited and specific character.

It is confined to ascertaining the apparent cause of death and does not require recording a detailed account of the incident or naming the persons responsible, the court clarified.

The court set aside an order of the Allahabad High Court granting bail to Kunwarpal Singh in a 2025 murder case from Mathura.

The case related to the murder of Bharat Singh, uncle of the complainant Bhagat Singh. Kunwarpal Singh and two others were named in the FIR registered at Chhata police station.

The trial court had earlier rejected the bail plea, considering the gravity of the offence, the post-mortem report and the recovery of the murder weapon at the instance of the accused.

However, the High Court granted bail on January 22, 2026, primarily noting that the informant (the appellant) and another panch witness (Shivcharan, brother of the deceased) had not levelled allegations against Kunwarpal Singh during the inquest proceedings.

Assailing the High Court order, the appellant contended that it was cryptic, non-speaking and failed to consider the material on record.

Accepting the contention, the Supreme Court said the impugned order suffered from non-application of mind and lacked substantial reasoning.

The bench noted that the respondent was specifically named in the FIR with a direct overt act of firing at the deceased. The post-mortem report confirmed ante-mortem firearm injuries, and the alleged murder weapon — a .315 bore country-made pistol along with a spent cartridge — was recovered at the instance of the accused from his uncle’s room. Witness statements also prima facie supported the allegations against him.

The court emphasised that the High Court was not justified in drawing an adverse inference solely from the absence of allegations during the inquest.

“The judicial discretion to grant bail, though wide, must be exercised in a judicious and reasoned manner,” the bench observed.

It added that the non-mention of the accused in the inquest could not be viewed in isolation while ignoring other strong material collected during investigation, including the FIR allegations, post-mortem report, weapon recovery and witness statements.

The court held that the High Court failed to consider the material facts and circumstances in accordance with settled principles governing bail in serious offences.

Accordingly, the court set aside the High Court’s order and remanded the bail application for fresh consideration in accordance with law. It directed Kunwarpal Singh to surrender within one week and remain in judicial custody till the High Court passes a fresh order.

The court also clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.