ORAL ORDER

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the counsel appearing for the respondent-State in both the petitions.

2. These two petitions are filed by the accused Nos.1 and 2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused No.1 who is the wife of the deceased having illicit relationship with the accused No.2. When the same came to the notice of the deceased, he assaulted her and snatched her phone since accused No.1 was continuously chatting with the accused No.2 and the said fact is also informed to the other accused and he purchased one mobile phone and gave the same to the accused No.1 and accused Nos.1 and 2 were continued their acts. That on 21.01.2022 the deceased again noticed that accused Nos.1 and 2 were talking over the phone. The accused No.1 informed that other accused deceased had again snatched the phone which was given by him to accused No.1 and the deceased come to know about the illicit relationship between them. Hence, the accused No.1 called the other accused and planned to commit murder of the deceased husband and on the same day, came to Mullur village in the motorcycle and both the accused Nos.1 and other accused conspired with each other and when deceased came to the house around 9.30 pm and he was sleeping, accused Nos.1 and other accused sharing the common intention of committing the murder between 12.00 to 12.30 am committed the murder of the deceased by squeezing the testicles. Based on the complaint, Police have registered the case and investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet against both the accused.

3. This Court earlier rejected the bail petition of accused No.2 in Crl.P.No.4156/2022 vide order dated 23.06.2022 and also the other accused i.e., wife of the deceased was also approached this Court by filing Crl.P.No.3778/2022 and this Court vide order dated 14.06.2022 given permission to withdraw the petition on the ground that charge sheet is filed and liberty to approach the Trial Court. Now, both of them have filed the petitions before this Court. Both the counsel in respective petitions would submits that these two accused persons are in custody from 22.01.2022. The counsel for the petitioner also would contend that trial is not yet commenced. The counsel also referring the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Ankur Chaudhary V/s State of Madhya Pradesh wherein in a NDPS case, taking into note of the accused is in custody, granted the bail.

4. The counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.12676/2024 also relied upon the order passed by the Apex Court in a case of Sangram Sadashiv Suryanshi V/s State of Maharashtra wherein a case of offence under Section 489A, 489B and 489C r/w Section 34 of IPC, 1860 wherein accused person are in for more than 2 ½ years and taking note of long incarcerations and also liberty under Article 21 of Constitution, enlarged him on bail. Hence, counsel relied upon these judgments of the Apex Court and seeks for bail.

5. The counsel appearing for the other petitioner would contend that case is rest upon the circumstantial evidence and case comes within the purview of 304 part II. Apart from that there is no any recovery and hence the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

6. Per Contra, the counsel for the respondent-

State would contend that this Court considered the matter on merits after filing of the charge sheet and while passing an order this Court in paragraph No.6 made an observation that both the petitioners who are in constant touch with each other on the date of committing the murder. This Court in paragraph No.6 also taken note of the CDR which discloses that both of them are constant touch with each other and phone calls were also made from 4.00 pm continuously till 7.35 pm. Having taken note of the said fact into consideration and also offence under Section 120B of IPC is also invoked and both of them have planned and conspired with each other to commit the murder to eliminate the husband of the accused No.1 who is coming