Bail may be granted in murder cases where circumstantial evidence is insufficient to establish the accused's involvement.

ORDER :

PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J.

1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.167/2024 registered at Police Station Saket Nagar, District Beawar for the offence(s) under Section 302 of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the entire case rests upon the circumstantial evidence and it is the duty of the prosecution to bring forth the entire circumstances indicating the involvement of the accused- petitioner in the alleged offence. The prosecution has failed to put forth the substantive evidence regarding the motive of the accused-petitioner in causing death of the deceased and so also any connectivity with other co-accused in the said case. As per the charge-sheet, it is alleged against the accused-petitioner that he conspired with other co-accused Mahendra Singh and Mohan Singh thereafter, with Mohan Singh caused murder of the deceased. The prosecution has collected CCTV footage from the place of occurrence, but the analysis of CCTV footage shows that the persons who were seen on a Scooty vehicle were not identifiable. From the petitioner, no incriminating evidence was collected. It is also stated in the charge-sheet that the accused- petitioner before hatching conspiracy to cause murder of the deceased conducted recce regarding the movement of the deceased, but that evidence is also not available on the record. It is also contended that the Scooty vehicle which was allegedly used for commission of offence was also not identifiable in the CCTV footage. The Investigating Officer submitted an application before the concerned RTO regarding the registration details of Scooty Activa 125 CC for last two years from the date of occurrence, in the list also, the Scooty which was recovered at the instance of the other co-accused has not been shown. The accused-petitioner is in custody since 05.04.2024 and trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, considering the above facts, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application and contended that the petitioner alongwith the other co-accused caused murder of the deceased and petitioner was seen in the CCTV with the other co-accused, therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be dismissed.

4. Heard and perused the material available on record.

5. The entire case rests upon the circumstantial evidence. Admittedly there is no last seen evidence. It is alleged against the accused-petitioner that he hatched conspiracy with the other co- accused to cause murder of the deceased and also conducted recce about the movement of the deceased. There is no evidence to the fact that the accused-petitioner conducted recce of the deceased. There is no evidence regarding motive of the petitioner, apart from the oral evidence of the deceased's daughter and wife. In the CCTV footage, the persons seem near to the place of occurrence were also not identifiable. There are no call details connected between the accused-petitioner and the other co- accused. The accused-petitioner is in custody since 05.04.2024, therefore, considering the above facts and without expressing anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

6. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Shyamsingh S/o Shri Mansingh, in connection with FIR No.167/2024 registered at Police Station Saket Nagar, District Beawar shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the da