The presumption of innocence prevails at the pre-conviction stage, necessitating bail when evidence is insufficient to justify continued custody.

ORDER :

(KULDEEP MATHUR, J.)

This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.180/2024 registered at Police Station Bhopalgarh, Jodhpur Rural, for the offences under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of BNS.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

3. As per the prosecution, the petitioner and the co-accused Baby, on the date of the alleged incident, strangulated the deceased- Ramli by tying her neck with an odna.

4. Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR and the challan papers so also the statements of Shrawan Ram, Shanti, Ram Niwas, etc. recorded under Section 180 BNSS, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not having any motive to commit the alleged crime.

5. Learned counsel submitted that a perusal of the challan papers and the statements of the aforementioned witnesses would further indicate that the husband of the co-accused Baby- Ramvilas was having an extramarital affair with the deceased- Ramli. The co-accused Baby was used to feel harassed and humiliated by the behaviour of the deceased- Ramli and, therefore, on the date of the alleged incident, after committing the alleged crime, co-accused Baby had informed Shrawan Ram (Complainant) that she had hit the deceased in her stomach. Learned counsel further submitted the case against the present petitioner is based on the disclosure statements made by the petitioner and co-accused Baby while they were in judicial custody which are per se inadmissible and cannot be used against present petitioner.

6. Learned counsel urged that the entire case of the prosecution against the present petitioner is based on circumstantial evidence in the form of call details/call locations collected by the investigating agency however, the same is not a substantive piece of evidence and the same cannot be treated as sufficient to keep the petitioner under judicial custody pending her trial.

7. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that there is no eye witness of the alleged incident. Learned Public Prosecutor was also not in a position to refute the fact that the case against the present petitioner is based upon circumstantial evidence in the form of call details/ call locations collected by the investigating agency.

9. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that prima facie there is no evidence of motive for the petitioner to commit the alleged crime; there is no eye-witness of the alleged incident; co-accused Baby immediately after the incident had told Shrawan Ram that she had hit the deceased- Ramli in her stomach and she was lying in the fields. In the opinion of this Court, though as per the prosecution, circumstantial evidence in form of call details/ call locations has been recovered by the investigating agency to establish complicity of the present petitioner in commission of the alleged crime but keeping in view the fact that the petitioner and co-accused Baby were close relatives, the communication between the two of them through mobile calls cannot be said to be unnatural. It is a settled law that at pre-conviction stage, there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. The learned Public Prosecutor has not shown any apprehension of petitioner influencing the material prosecution witnesses of the case or fleeing away from justice, in case she is enlarged on bail by this Court. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

10. Consequently, th