The court ruled that insufficient evidence against the accused in a murder case justifies the granting of bail, emphasizing the need to impose conditions to prevent witness tampering.

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI)

This petition is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail in Crime no.117/2024 of Hubli Rural Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 302 , 34 and 120B of Indian Penal Code , 1860 (‘ IPC ’ for short) by accused no.1 (petitioner).

2. Sri VM Sheelvant, learned counsel for petitioner submitted as per prosecution case, a complaint was filed by Moulasab on 13.05.2024 at 1:00 p.m. stating that his parents were originally from Harishinageri village of Mundgod taluk, but were residing in Halyal village of Hubballi taluk since 40 years. Complainant and his elder brother Sharifsab were married and were residing separately in same village. And on 12.05.2024, he received information at 10:00 p.m. about his brother found injured in school. He went there and saw Sharifsab lying dead in pool of blood with injuries on his head, face and limbs. It was stated that at 9:30 p.m. victim and Shashidhar (accused no.1) went to Egg-rice shop of Dhawalsab (CW.17) and ordered parcel and went into school but not found later. Therefore, he suspected accused no.1 had murdered victim with flooring stone or some other weapon. Said complaint was registered as Crime no.117/2024 and petitioner arrested on 13.05.2024 and his statement was recorded. Thereafter charge sheet was filed on 26.07.2024.

3. It was submitted in FIR, complainant had falsely implicated petitioner without sufficient basis or eye-witnesses to incident. It was submitted though prosecution intended to rely on two circumstances, firstly, last seen theory, based on statement of CW.14 that victim and petitioner came to his shop, ordered parcel and went into school and thereafter victim was found dead. But, in statement recorded under Section 164, CW.14 mentioned only about deceased coming to his shop for parcel, therefore petitioner’s implication was without any basis. Even statement of CW.16 was about seeing petitioner and accused no.2 running on tank bund stating that they had quarreled with victim. But by that time he had already heard about murder, which was contrary to his statement. It was submitted, entire prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confession.

4. It was submitted postmortem report would show, cause of death as due to asphyxia as a result of compression of neck. It was submitted, above material would not in any manner implicate petitioner or directly incriminate against him. Thus, only basis for arraigning petitioner was alleged recovery of bloodstained clothes, FSL report and confessional statement of petitioner. It was submitted, whether clothes stained with blood of victim would be matter for trial. And Hon’ble Supreme Court had time and again stated confessional statements as unreliable. It was thus submitted since charge sheet was already filed and matter was pending at stage of hearing before charge, conclusion of trial was likely to be delayed. As petitioner was in custody from 13.05.2024, he was entitled for bail on conditions.

5. On other hand, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP opposed petition. It was submitted offences alleged against accused conspiracy to murder and murder, which were heinous and punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It was submitted there were specific overt-acts against petitioner and in course of investigation, Investigating Officer had recorded statements of several persons including CW.14 about last seen and CW.16 who had heard petitioner and accused no.2 stating about quarrel with victim, while they were running away. It was submitted that confession by accused had also lead to recovery of bloodstained clothes. Thus, there was sufficient material to support charges and as nature of offences were heinous and prosecution witnesses were from same village, there would be every chance of petitioner tampering prosecution witnesses, in case of grant of bail. As such sough