Parity and lack of specific forensic linkage warrant bail in circumstantial murder cases involving multiple accused.

The Petitioner, Ram Nath, sought regular bail in connection with FIR No. 720/2023 under Sections 302, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The prosecution alleged that the Petitioner, along with three others, engaged the services of the deceased (a sex worker). During "aggressive sex," the Petitioner allegedly strangulated her to death, after which the four accused dumped the body.

The State opposed bail, citing CCTV footage of the accused carrying a bag and a bite mark on the Petitioner’s thumb containing the deceased’s saliva.

The Petitioner contended that the FSL report showed no signs of sexual activity and that the other three co-accused had already been granted bail.

The Petitioner had been in custody since September 11, 2023.

1. Whether the gravity of the offence and the available circumstantial evidence justify the continued incarceration of the accused/applicant pending trial.

2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to bail on the grounds of parity, given that co-accused persons have been released and the forensic evidence is inconclusive.

The Court considered the provisions of Section 302 (Murder), Section 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence), and Section 34 (Common intention) of the IPC.

The court applied the principle that in cases of circumstantial evidence, there must be a prima facie link connecting the specific accused to the fatal act.

It further relied on the principle of parity in bail jurisprudence, suggesting that where similarly placed co-accused are released and the specific role of the applicant is not Forensically established, further detention may not be warranted.

The Court noted that the case relies entirely on circumstantial evidence, as there were no "last seen" witnesses.

While the prosecution alleged death during "aggressive sex," the Court observed that the FSL report found no evidence of sexual activity on the body, contradicting the prosecution’s core narrative.

Although a bite mark was found on the Petitioner’s thumb, the Court reasoned that this alone did not conclusively prove he was the individual responsible for the strangulation, especially since three other co-accused were already granted bail.

The Court emphasized that for the limited purpose of bail, the lack of forensic corroboration regarding the sexual assault weakened the "gravity" argument for continued detention.

The bail application was allowed, and the Petitioner was directed to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

The Court clarified that these observations were prima facie and should not influence the final trial.