Supreme Court Says Failure to Name Accused in Inquest Report Can't Be Ground for Bail

The Supreme Court has clarified that an inquest is only a limited preliminary enquiry meant to ascertain the apparent cause of death and is not intended to identify the accused or record a detailed account of how the incident took place.

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh held that the non-mentioning of the author of the crime or the person who allegedly caused the death in an inquest report cannot, by itself, be a ground to doubt the involvement of an accused who is subsequently named during the investigation.

What is an inquest?

An inquest is the first official examination conducted by the police when a person dies under suspicious, unnatural or unexplained circumstances. Under Section 174 of the CrPC (now Section 194 of the BNSS), its purpose is to record the apparent cause of death and the condition of the body.

The Supreme Court allowed an appeal filed by Bhagat Singh against a January 22, 2026 order of the Allahabad High Court granting bail to Kunwarpal Singh in a murder case relating to the death of Bharat Singh, the complainant's uncle.

The respondent and two others were named as accused in the FIR registered in 2025 at Chhata police station in Mathura.

The trial court had rejected the accused's bail plea on September 26, 2025, after considering the facts of the case, the gravity of the offence, the post-mortem report and the recovery of the alleged murder weapon at his instance. However, the high court later granted bail, observing, among other things, that the informant and Shivcharan, the deceased's brother, who were panch witnesses, had not made any allegation against the respondent during the inquest proceedings.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the high court had passed a cryptic and unreasoned order without considering the material facts and evidence on record.

After examining the record, the Bench agreed.

"We are persuaded to accept the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant. The impugned order, in our considered opinion, suffers from non-application of mind and is cryptic and bereft of substantial reasoning or analysis of the material particulars," Court said.

Why did the Supreme Court say the inquest report could not justify bail?

Court said the high court attached undue importance to the fact that the respondent was not named during the inquest proceedings.

"It is well settled that the scope of an inquiry under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, now corresponding to Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, 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," the Bench observed.

Court, therefore, held that the high court was not justified in drawing an adverse inference merely because the informant and another panch witness had not named the respondent during the inquest proceedings.

It further clarified that the omission to mention an accused in an inquest report cannot be viewed in isolation while ignoring the other evidence collected during the investigation.

What evidence did the Supreme Court say the high court overlooked?

The Bench noted that the respondent had been specifically named in the FIR, with a direct allegation that he fired at the deceased.

It also referred to the post-mortem report, which recorded ante-mortem firearm injuries, including entry and exit wounds with blackening and tattooing, and concluded that the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from firearm injuries.

Court further noted that the alleged murder weapon, a .315 bore country-made pistol along with a spent cartridge, was recovered during the investigation at the instance of the respondent from his uncle's room.

In addition, witness statements recorded under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, prima facie supported the prosecution's allegation regarding the respondent's involvement.

"The specific overt act attributed to respondent No. 2 in the FIR, 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... constituted material circumstances which required due consideration," Court observed.

According to the Bench, these materials, which prima facie implicated the respondent, could not have been brushed aside solely because he was not named during the inquest proceedings.

Court also reiterated that although courts have wide discretion to grant bail, such discretion must be exercised judiciously and with proper reasons, particularly in cases involving serious offences.

"We are, therefore, of the considered view that the high court, while enlarging respondent No. 2 on bail, failed to take into consideration the material facts and circumstances of the case and assigned reasons which are not in consonance with the settled principles governing the grant of bail, especially, in serious offences," the Bench held.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the high court's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration of the bail application in accordance with law.

Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the case and that the high court would decide the bail application independently.

Allowing the appeal, the Bench directed the respondent to surrender before the concerned jail authorities within one week. It further directed that he shall remain in judicial custody until the high court passes an appropriate order on the reconsideration of his bail plea.

Case Title: Bhagat Singh Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh

Date of Judgment: May 22, 2026