JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has sought to be enlarged on bail in connection with his detention in S.C.No.380/2014 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 404, 449, 307, 201, 402 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The facts that are made out by the prosecution is as stated in column No.7 of the charge sheet. It is to be noted that initially a complaint was filed without naming any of the accused. Subsequently, after investigation, charge sheet has been filed and it is stated that the accused used to identify the house where the solitary ladies were staying would mark and trespass into such houses and he would murder ladies and rob cash and ornaments. It is further stated that on 1.9.2013, accused had gone to the house of CW.10 under the guise of repairing cable thereafter he had gone to the house of CW.12 and the accused fled the said house.

3. On 1.8.2018 it is stated that the accused after having information that deceased was residing alone, at about 7.15 p.m., went to the house of the deceased, entered the house on some pretext and assaulted the deceased with a knife and when her daughter CW.3 came into the room to help the deceased, he had assaulted CW.3 as well. It is further stated that the petitioner/accused had also stolen Samsung Galaxy Mobile of the deceased. A complaint has come to be filed in that regard.

4. It is stated that charge sheet has been filed. It also to be noted that accused No.2 has been enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that 25 witnesses have examined including prime witness-CW.3 who is stated to be the only witnesses who has seen the accused allegedly committing the act of killing the deceased.

5. It is to be noted that the petitioner is in custody since 8.9.2013. It is also to be noted that the evidence of many of important witnesses are complete and more importantly the evidence of CW.3 (PW-2) is complete. Prima Facie there appears to be certain contradictions in the evidence of CW.3 and in fact as pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, CW.3 in the cross examination, has stated that the accused did not come to the house of the deceased. However, the evidence will have to be appreciated at the time of trial, considering that the prime witness is a child (CW.3).

6. Taking note of fact that evidence of 25 witnesses most of whom are considered to be important witnesses to support the story of the prosecution, is complete, and also observing that there is no history of criminal antecedents as against the petitioner and proceedings in a bail cannot be treated to be proceedings in the nature of punishment, without getting into the weight of the evidence and the nature of evidence of witnesses who have tendered evidence before Court, the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail. The apprehension regarding tampering the witnesses at this stage is also to be appreciated taking note of the fact that evidence of most of the important witnesses is complete including that of the prime witness (CW.3) also would not arise in so far as many of the witnesses who are supporting the story of the prosecution are already examined.

7. The petition is allowed subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) with two sureties for the like sum before the Concerned Court.

(ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the expeditious disposal of the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence, influence in any way any witness.

(iv) Any violation of the aforementioned conditions by the petitioners, shall result in automatic cancellation of bail.