Bail granted in murder trial where material prosecution witnesses failed to support the accusation.

The applicant, a 57-year-old laborer, filed his first bail application following his arrest on July 3, 2025.

He was charged under Section 302 of the IPC in connection with Crime No. 640/2025 at Police Station Adhartal.

The prosecution alleged that following a quarrel with the applicant on the night of June 27, 2024, the deceased (the applicant’s brother, Rajesh Mahobiya) was found dead near a public tap the following morning.

During the trial, nine material prosecution witnesses, including alleged eyewitnesses, were examined and failed to support the accusation.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, given that key prosecution witnesses did not support the case

2. Whether there exists a likelihood of the applicant fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence if released

The Court primarily considered Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to bail provisions under the CrPC), regarding the discretionary power to grant bail.

The Court applied cumulative legal principles for bail: the nature and gravity of the offense (Section 302 IPC), the period of incarceration, the conduct of the applicant (lack of criminal antecedents), and the probability of the applicant's presence during trial or potential for witness intimidation.

Section 346 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 309 CrPC) regarding the timely examination of witnesses.

The Court observed that while the charge is grave (murder), the prosecution's case relies heavily on circumstantial evidence and witness statements.

Crucially, the Court noted that all material prosecution witnesses (PW-1 to PW-5 and PW-8 to PW-11) have already been examined and did not support the prosecution's allegations, thereby weakening the prima facie case against the applicant.

The applicant has been in custody since July 2025, has no prior criminal history, and possesses deep roots in the community, reducing the risk of absconding.

The Court reasoned that since material witnesses have already testified, the risk of tampering with evidence or influencing the remaining process is minimal.

The Court allowed the application and directed the release of the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the same amount subject to specific conditions, including regular attendance at hearings and a prohibition against committing further offenses or tampering with remaining evidence.