The court denied bail due to the serious nature of the charges and sufficient circumstantial evidence against the accused, emphasizing the right to claim innocence does not guarantee bail.

CAV 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.248/2023 by Garag Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) by sole accused (Petitioner).

2. Sri TR Patil, learned counsel for petitioner submitted case of prosecution was that Smt.Roopa w/o Suresh Devaravar filed complaint on 24.12.2023 that about seven months earlier, petitioner who was running Tea Shop and having a B.E. passed son, borrowed Rs.60,000/- from her husband Suresh (victim). But even after repeated demand, petitioner had not returned money and had maintained grudge against Suresh. It was further stated that at 3:00 p.m. on 21.12.2023, when Suresh went to Tea Shop and demanded money, petitioner had abused him and returned Rs.30,000/-.

3. Thereafter at 6:30 p.m. on 24.12.2023, Suresh had left home on his motorcycle informing complainant that he was going to Amminbhavi. And that complainant had seen petitioner carrying a satchel and sitting behind Suresh. Later at 8:15 p.m., someone called her father-in-law to inform him that someone had killed Suresh by hitting him on his head with Crowbar and he was lying near land of Toggi on Uppin Betageri – Haro Belavadi road. On reaching spot, she noted petitioner who was pillion rider behind her husband Suresh (victim) was missing, but his foot wear were found nearby. On enquiry, she heard that at 8:00 p.m. when petitioner was riding with victim, petitioner had hit victim on his head with Crowbar killing him and with intention to hide/destroy evidence of murder, had sought to make it look like a motor accident. Said complaint was registered as Crime no.248/2023 by Garag Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC .

4. It was submitted on 26.12.2023, petitioner was arrested. Though, he had filed bail petition in SC no.39/2024, same was dismissed by order dated 22.07.2024 without proper consideration. It was submitted, investigation was already completed and charge-sheet was filed on 31.01.2024. Same would reveal that there were no eye-witnesses to incident and entire case of prosecution was dependent on circumstantial evidence. It was submitted, in her statement recorded by Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (for short ‘CrPC’), complainant had stated amount borrowed from deceased by petitioner was Rs.60,000/- but in her statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, she alleged that amount borrowed was Rs.2,00,000/-. Likewise, there was contradiction about time of receipt of information about her husband’s death and about her returning home from Shandy. It was submitted injuries noted in PM Report were Cut Lacerated Wounds (CLW) which could be caused only by a sharp object like knife or machete. And as there were no ocular witnesses to incident, all witnesses were hear-say witnesses. It was further pointed out, bag stated to have been carried by petitioner herein was not recovered. It was further submitted, as per prosecution description of murder weapon Crowbar was 55 inches in length and 5 inches in diameter, which was concealed by petitioner in satchel, which was totally improbable casting grave doubt about prosecution version.

5. It was further submitted, petitioner was arrested on 26.12.2023, while charge-sheet was filed on 31.01.2024 and petitioner had already spent more than a year in custody. Further, as prosecution had shown 34 witnesses in charge- sheet, conclusion of trial was likely to be delayed. On above grounds, sought for allowing bail petition. It was also submitted, there no criminal antecedents. On above grounds, learned counsel sought for allowing petition by imposing conditions.

6. On other hand, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for respondent – State opposed petition. It was submitted, petitioner was charge-sheeted for commission