Bail is granted when circumstantial evidence is weak, lacks forensic corroboration, and fails to establish a prima facie case, especially when key witnesses turn hostile during trial, rendering continued detention unjustified.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302/34 - Bail application - Circumstantial evidence - Alleged murder - Accused in custody since arrest - Lack of incriminating forensic evidence from crime scene - Prosecution witness turned hostile regarding the last-seen theory - Physical evidence found on the deceased body considered implausible given conditions of recovery - Absence of credible evidence to link the applicant with the commission of the alleged offense warrants grant of bail. (Paras 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8)

(B) Bail - Grant of - Court should not rely solely on secret information or weak circumstantial evidence when deciding on bail - Prima facie determination of evidence reliability is essential when considering personal liberty. (Paras 5, 8)

Facts of the case:
The applicant sought regular bail in connection with a case involving the death of an individual whose body was discovered in a decomposed state. The prosecution case relied on a handwritten note retrieved from the pocket of the deceased and a statement from a witness claiming the deceased was seen in the company of the accused. During the trial, the witness did not support the prosecution, and forensic investigation failed to yield fingerprints or other incriminating evidence from the vehicle where the offense reportedly occurred.

Findings of Court:
The court identified a lack of substantive evidence, noting the implausibility of the evidentiary value of the note found on the highly decomposed body. Furthermore, the court observed that the alleged last-seen witness failed to support the prosecution’s case and that relying solely on secret information collected during investigation without physical corroboration is insufficient to deny liberty.

Issues: The issues were whether, in the absence of credible forensic corroboration and considering the failure of the prosecution witness to support the theory of last seen, the accused should be granted bail.

Ratio Decidendi: Where there exists no credible prima facie evidence to connect an accused with an alleged crime, and where purported circumstantial links fail to hold up upon scrutiny, continued detention is unjustified, necessitating the release of the accused on bail.

Result: Bail allowed.

Table of Content
1. establishment of the prosecution case and investigative background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. conflicting contentions regarding admissible evidence and witness testimony. (Para 4 , 5)
3. insufficiency of circumstantial evidence warrants grant of bail. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. court order directing the release of the accused on bail. (Para 9 , 10)

JUDGMENT :

Girish Kathpalia, J.

1. The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 467/2023 of Police Station Chhawla for offence under Section 302/34 IPC.

2. I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant and learned APP for State assisted by IO/Inspector Vikramjeet.

3. Broadly speaking, prosecution case is as follows. The case originates from a blind FIR recorded on telephonic information that in the drain, one dead body was found. The local police retrieved the dead body with the help of professional divers and the same was found highly putrefied and decomposed. From pocket of the deceased, one paper slip was recovered on which 2-3 mobile phone numbers and one name of Twinkle and one name of Krishan Kumar were found handwritten. Along with that, from pocket of the deceased one currency note of Rs.500/- also was recovered. After ascertaining the identity of the deceased, her infant child was handed over to one NGO for safe custody. After some time, in the course of investigation, a secret information was received and on the basis thereof the present accused/applicant and co-accused Ajay were arrested on 02.10.2023 along with the car in which they allegedly killed the deceased.

4. Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that he is in jail since 02.10.2023, without any legally admissible evidence. It is also submitted that none of the prosecution witnesses has supported prosecution case during trial, so there is no reason to deny liberty to the accused/applicant.

5. On the other hand, learned APP assisted by the IO explains that the accused/applicant had intimate relations with the deceased, and the infant was born to them but the accused/applicant did not want to get married, so he killed the deceased by strangulating her in his car. It is submitted that by way of circumstantial evidence, there is statement of one puncture repairer, who lastly saw the deceased in the company of the accused/applicant at 12:30am on 29.09.2023 and thereafter, at 02:00pm on 30.09.2023, dead body of the deceased was recovered. In response to a specific query, the IO also admits that no chance prints could be found by the Crime Team in the car in which the deceased was allegedly strangulated.

6. Without analysing as to whether in view of the above mentioned time gap between 12:30am of 29.09.2023 and 02:00pm on 30.09.2023, the allegation that the deceased was lastly seen with the accused can be accepted as an evidence of last seen, suffice it to record that admittedly even that puncture repairer has not supported the prosecution during trial to establish that the deceased was seen with the accused/applicant at 12:30am on 29.09.2023.

7. I find substance in the submission of learned counsel for accused/applicant that it is difficult to believe that the paper in the pocket of the deceased would remain intact across two days and not get dissolved in the water.

8. I also find force in the submission that presently there is no evidence to connect the accused/applicant with the alleged murder except the so-called “secret information” which came up when the investigator was clueless about the killer. However, I must add a cautious rider that these are only prima facie findings, and the ultimate decision shall be arrived at by the trial court on the basis of evidence adduced during trial, independent of the above observations.

9. In view of the aforesaid, I find no reason to further deny liberty to the accused/applicant. The bail application is allowed and the accused/applicant is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document