Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; lack of corroborative evidence justifies granting bail under personal liberty principles.

ORDER :

1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.

2. The present successive bail application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11191035240223 of 2024 registered with Naroda Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence. Investigation is over and chargesheet has been filed. Complaint is lodged against unknown person/s. During the investigation, the applicant is arrested. There is no any eyewitness or any piece of corroborate evidence is collected. However, merely based on the confessional statement, the applicant has been arraigned as an accused. Except this, no role is attributed the applicant. Further, there is no any last together evidence or scientific evidence is there against the applicant. Considering the same, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

4. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed the present application and submitted that, the applicant was having clear motive to commit the offence, when the applicant was in jail, the deceased, who happened to be mother-in-law of the applicant, had performed marriage of wife of the applicant with someone else and therefore, by keeping the grudge, the applicant has committed murder of the deceased. Therefore, if he is released on bail, possibility cannot be ruled out to tamper with the evidence and hamper the witnesses. Therefore, application does not deserve any consideration.

5. While granting bail, the Court has to consider the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence, the jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case and the following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail: (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses and threat to the complainant or the witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv) character behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations are required to be considered.

6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the investigation papers. Following aspects have been considered:

(1) Investigation is over and chargesheet has been filed;

(2) Applicant is in jail since 08.04.2024.

(3) There is nothing to be recovered or discovered from the applicant;

(4) perusing the record, it appears that, the applicant is not named in FIR but during investigation his name is surfaced.

(5) The alleged incident took place on 23.02.2024 and FIR is lodged on 27.02.2024 i.e. after a delay of 4 days.

(6) Though on the body, more than 20 injuries are found, but no specific opinion was given in the PM note and no scientific or corroborative evidence is there.

(7) Except confessional statement, no role is played by the applicant.

7. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40 as well as in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs. Pub