P&H HC Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Fatal Farsa Blow After Complainant’s Trial Testimony Attributed Fatal Knife Blow To Co-Accused

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in an FIR alleging offences under Sections 191(3), 115(2), 109(1), 103(1) and 329 read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The FIR alleged that the petitioner struck the deceased, Kamla, on the neck with a farsa; she died after the incident.

The petitioner was arrested on 28 August 2025, and the police filed the final report after investigation.

At the bail hearing, the petitioner relied on an apparent difference between the FIR’s account and the post-mortem description of the fatal injury, and on the complainant’s later testimony attributing the fatal knife blow to a co-accused and only a restraint role to the petitioner.

Several co-accused had been granted bail; the State and complainant opposed bail, including on the ground of threats to witnesses.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, empowers the High Court to grant regular bail.

In exercising that discretion, the Court considered the petitioner’s alleged role, the evidentiary material then available, the period of custody, the likely duration of trial, and parity with similarly placed co-accused.

The charged offences included provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including Section 190 concerning liability of members of an unlawful assembly; the State invoked that principle to argue that the assembly’s members shared responsibility for acts committed in furtherance of its common object.

The Court noted that the FIR attributed a fatal farsa blow to the petitioner, but the post-mortem report described the fatal injury as a stab wound whose site and nature did not correspond with that allegation or the weapon attributed to him.

In his trial testimony, the complainant gave a different account: the petitioner and others allegedly restrained Kamla, while a co-accused inflicted the fatal knife blow.

The Court treated the petitioner’s resulting alleged role as comparable to that of co-accused who had already been released on bail.

It also found that the petitioner could not be held responsible for alleged threats by family members while he remained in custody, there being no allegation that he himself had threatened anyone.

In view of parity, custody, and the expected time required for trial, the Court concluded that further detention was unwarranted.

The Court ordered the petitioner’s release on regular bail upon furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court or Duty Magistrate, subject to usual terms and conditions.