Circumstantial evidence must be substantiated with corroboration for a successful prosecution; long pre-trial detention warrants bail when parity with co-accused exists.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT BORKAR, J.

1. The present bail application is filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking his release on bail in connection with Crime Register No. I-377 of 2021 registered with Arnala Police Station, District Palghar. The applicant has been booked for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28 November 2021 at around 10:00 a.m., one Arjun Nagappa Pawar, Assistant Police Inspector, lodged a report of an accidental death, which was registered as A.D. No. 76 of 2021. It was reported that a partially decomposed body of an unknown woman was found floating in the sea approximately 100 meters from Maharambalpada Jetty No. 22, Virar West. The body was found tied with a nylon rope, along with a 10-kilogram stone. The deceased was wearing a black T- shirt with white floral design, black jeans, and a black netted bra. Upon receiving telephonic intimation on 27 November 2021 at around 2:00 p.m., the police reached the spot and recovered the body. The post-mortem was conducted at Primary Health Centre, Agashi, which revealed that the cause of death was strangulation.

3. It was alleged that after committing the murder, the accused persons attempted to dispose of the body by tying a heavy stone to it and throwing it in the sea to destroy the evidence. Based on these findings, the case was converted from an accidental death to a case of murder. During investigation, it was revealed that the present applicant, along with a co-accused, had murdered the deceased woman. The motive, as gathered by the police, is that accused No.1 had an illicit relationship with the deceased and that she was demanding money from him, which led to frustration on his part. It is further alleged that with the help of the co-accused, the applicant committed the offence of murder and both accused tied a stone to the deceased’s body and disposed of it in the creek water. However, the body resurfaced, which led to registration of the FIR. The applicant had earlier applied for bail before the Sessions Court, which came to be rejected.

4. Learned Advocate appearing for the applicant has submitted that the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. It is submitted that there is no direct eyewitness account of the alleged offence and that the evidence relied upon by the prosecution is insufficient to establish a complete chain of circumstances. It is pointed out that the alleged motive is merely based on a strained relationship and financial dispute, which by itself is not sufficient to convict or deny bail unless supported by other corroborative evidence.

5. It is further submitted that the extra-judicial confession of the applicant is stated to have been made after almost 30 days from the date of incident and such delay casts doubt on its veracity. The prosecution has also placed reliance on the Call Detail Record (CDR) which merely indicates that one call was made from the deceased’s number to the applicant’s number at around 3:18 p.m. on the relevant day, which, by itself, does not conclusively establish the presence of the applicant at the scene of offence.

6. Learned Advocate further submits that one Ankit, whose statement is recorded under Section 164 CrPC, allegedly stated that he saw the applicant along with the co-accused after the incident and that the applicant had changed his clothes, which were earlier