The court ruled that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain establishing guilt to deny bail.

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

DATED : JULY 28, 2025 P.C.:

1. The present bail application is filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973, seeking his release in connection with Crime Register No. 9 of 2024 registered with NRI Sagari Police Station, Navi Mumbai. The applicant has been arrested in connection with serious offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860.

2. As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that the present applicant (Accused No.1) and co-accused Poonam (Accused No.2) were having an extramarital relationship. The deceased was the husband of Accused No.2. At the same time, it is further alleged that the deceased was also involved in an intimate relationship with the sister of the present applicant. It is stated that the deceased and the applicant’s sister were colleagues, working in the same office. According to the prosecution, this web of relationships gave rise to jealousy and resentment, which ultimately led the accused persons to allegedly conspire and murder the deceased. The alleged incident of murder is said to have occurred during the intervening night of 12th and 13th January 2024. The prosecution also relies on mobile communication records indicating frequent contact between the applicant and the deceased before the incident, which is projected as circumstantial evidence pointing towards a conspiracy. The applicant was arrested on 14th January 2024. His bail application before the Sessions Court came to be rejected. Hence, the present application has been filed before this Court.

3. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has taken me through the case papers and statements of the prosecution witnesses. It is submitted that the entire prosecution case rests solely on circumstantial evidence. The main circumstances being relied upon by the prosecution are – (i) the alleged motive due to personal relationships, (ii) the theory of the deceased being last seen in the company of the applicant, (iii) recovery of bloodstained clothes, and (iv) recovery of the alleged weapon. The learned Advocate has pointed out that although the prosecution places reliance on CCTV footage showing the applicant entering the office premises along with witness Satyam Singh, such footage is post-incident and does not conclusively establish the applicant’s involvement in the crime. It is further submitted that the footage does not show the applicant wearing the bloodstained shirt, which the prosecution later recovered. The learned Advocate contends that witness Satyam Singh was allegedly present on the mezzanine floor at the relevant time, while the incident is stated to have occurred inside the cabin of the deceased. The alleged weapon, an iron rod, was recovered from the passage in front of the cabin, which, according to the defence, is accessible to others as well. In light of these facts, it is submitted that the prosecution has not established a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances to point solely towards the guilt of the applicant. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail, as the material is not sufficient to justify his continued detention.

4. On the other hand, the learned APP, assisted by the learned Advocate representing the victim’s family, has strongly opposed the grant of bail. It is argued that the prosecution has sufficiently brought on record the motive, which arises from the alleged romantic involvement between the deceased and the applicant’s sister, as well as between the applicant and the deceased’s wife. This, according to the prosecution, provided sufficient provocation and inten