The court emphasized the balance between the right to liberty and the need to protect the integrity of the judicial process.

ORAL ORDER

Petitioner, sole accused is facing trial in S.C.No.204/2025 before the Court of XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City for the offence Punishable under Section 103(1) of the BNS, 2023.

2. Petitioner has preferred Crl.P.No.3956/2025 before this Court, praying to enlarge him on bail. The said petition was dismissed as withdrawn, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition after examination of CWs.2 to 4, before the Trial Court.

3. Petitioner is accused of committing the murder of his wife by strangulating her. First informant, who is the brother of the deceased is not an eye witnesses to the incident. According to prosecution, the children and mother of the petitioner are the eyewitnesses. They are cited as CWs.2 to 4 in the charge sheet. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that CWs.2 to 4 have been examined by the Trial Court, and all the three witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. She submitted that petitioner is languishing in judicial custody for the last one year and due to his incarceration, his minor children are suffering and they are not able to pay school fee etc. as there are no other earning members in the family.

4. Learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that the offence committed by the petitioner is heinous in nature and if he is granted bail, he may flee from justice and thereby hamper the trial.

5. As per prosecution, deceased and petitioner were married for 17 years. A verbal quarrel took place on 20.09.2024 at about 05:00 p.m., when the petitioner asked the deceased to prepare tea for him. It is alleged that, petitioner strangulated the deceased with a veil and committed her murder.

6. In this case, CW.2 to 4 are said to be eyewitnesses to the incident. Though their evidence rendered before the Trial Court cannot be appreciated, as it is the duty of the Trial Court, however, in view of completion of recording of their evidence, question of tampering the said witnesses does not arise. Petitioner has been in judicial custody from 21.09.2024.

7. Considering that the eyewitnesses are already examined and the petitioner is in judicial custody from 21.09.2024 and he having undertaken to furnish adequate surety to ensure his regular presence before the Trial Court, the relief sought in the petition can be granted by imposing conditions. Accordingly, the following:-

ORDER

i) Petition is allowed ii) Petitioner/accused in Crime No.364/2024 of Mico Layout Police Station, Bengalur City, pending in S.C.No.204/2025 on the file of the Court of XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, shall be enlarged on bail, subject to following conditions:

1. He shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

2. He shall furnish proof of his residential address and shall inform the Court, if there is change in the address.

3. He shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

4. He shall not indulge himself in committing any offence.

5. He shall appear before the trial Court regularly on all dates of hearing.

Violation of any of the condition shall result in cancellation of bail.