Bail granted where completed investigation reveals no prima facie link beyond recovery of the alleged weapon.

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Athani Police Station Crime No. 463/2024, registered for offences under Sections 332(b), 103(1) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that on 20 December 2024, the petitioner entered the deceased’s house and assaulted her with a knife, causing injuries; the victim was pregnant and the fetus died.

The petitioner was arrested, and the police later filed a charge sheet; the case was committed to the Sessions Court.

The prosecution case was circumstantial.

The prosecution relied, among other things, on a knife recovered at the petitioner’s instance and opposed bail on the grounds of the offence’s gravity and possible witness-tampering.

The petitioner had been in judicial custody since his arrest.

1. Whether the petitioner should be enlarged on regular bail pending trial, having regard to the circumstantial evidence, the recovery of the knife, and the nature and gravity of the allegations.

2. Whether the identified risks, including possible witness-tampering or interference with trial, warranted refusing bail.

The Court considered the bail jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

In deciding bail, the Court stated that relevant considerations include the nature and circumstances of the offence, the accused’s position in relation to the victim and witnesses, the likelihood of absconding, reoffending or tampering with witnesses, and the accused’s character and antecedents.

A bail hearing is not a mini-trial or an occasion to conduct a detailed assessment of the prosecution case.

The alleged offences were under Sections 332(b), 103(1) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court noted that the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed.

Although a knife had been recovered at the petitioner’s instance, the Court observed that the material disclosed no other prima facie circumstance establishing his involvement; the case otherwise rested on circumstantial evidence.

Applying the stated bail considerations, the Court concluded that there were no reasonable and sufficient grounds at that stage to believe the petitioner guilty of the alleged offences, and held that he was entitled to bail.

Bail was subject to conditions that he not tamper with or threaten prosecution witnesses, attend the trial court regularly, and not involve himself in similar or other offences.

The prosecution may seek cancellation of bail if a condition is violated.