Application of Section 103 and 3(8) BNS to Indivisible Acts Resulting in Culpable Homicide

The petitioner sought regular bail regarding an FIR registered under Section 103 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The prosecution alleged that on February 24, 2026, a woman arrived at a residence shouting and causing a disturbance

The petitioner allegedly beat her with tree branches, after which a co-accused pushed her into a drain/nallah, resulting in her death from spinal shock and drowning

The petitioner argued he was merely trying to pacify the deceased and had no common intention with the co-accused

The State opposed the bail, citing the heinous nature of the crime and the risk of witness tampering, as the witnesses reside in the same building as the petitioner

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail considering the nature of the accusation, the severity of the potential punishment, and the possibility of influencing witnesses

2. Whether the acts of the petitioner and the co-accused constituted a single indivisible act making him liable for the resulting death

The court applied Section 103 (Punishment for murder) and Section 3(8) of the BNS, 2023

Regarding bail, the court relied on the broad principles established in Pinki v. State of U.P. (2025) and Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor (1978), which emphasize that the nature of the charge, the severity of punishment, and the likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses are vital factors

It further applied the principle from Subbappa Channappa v. Emperor (1912) and the Ratanlal and Dhirajlal commentary, stating that when several acts are done in concert to produce an end result, each participant is liable for that result as a single indivisible thing

The court reasoned that although the petitioner claimed an absence of common intention, his initial act of beating and pushing the deceased toward the drain, followed by the co-accused pushing her into it, formed a single indivisible series of events leading to her death

The court found that because the charge is murder, the potential for a life sentence or death penalty increases the flight risk and the likelihood that the accused would avoid justice

Additionally, the court noted that because key eyewitnesses reside in the same building as the petitioner, there is a legitimate apprehension that his release would compromise a fair trial through witness influence

The court dismissed the relevance of the petitioner's telephone calls to the police, noting they did not negate the consequences of the physical acts committed

The petition was dismissed. The court clarified that these observations are limited to the bail application and do not affect the merits of the upcoming trial