Prima facie eyewitness evidence of specific roles justified denying bail in the murder case.

The petitioners, accused Nos. 1–3, sought regular bail in a murder case arising from the death of Chandrawwa, allegedly following a dispute over her share in family property.

The prosecution alleged that, during a survey of the disputed land, the accused pushed her into a canal and later smothered her with a towel while taking her for treatment.

The petitioners contended that the case was based on circumstantial evidence, denied the allegations, and relied on the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge sheet.

The State opposed bail, asserting that witnesses had described the accused’s roles and that release could lead to witness tampering.

The petitions were considered together.

1. Whether accused Nos. 1–3 should be enlarged on regular bail after completion of the investigation and filing of the charge sheet.

2. Whether the prima facie material and the risk of interference with the trial justified refusing bail at this stage.

The petitions were considered under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court assessed the prima facie prosecution material, the gravity of the alleged offence, and the stated risk of witness tampering and trial interference.

No precedent was cited.

The Court found that the charge sheet identified CW-10 to CW-14 as eyewitnesses who attributed specific roles to accused Nos. 1–3, including pushing the deceased into the canal and later pressing her neck with a towel.

The towel was recovered at the accused’s instance, the alleged motive concerned the deceased’s property, and the medical cause of death was asphyxia due to smothering.

On this material, the Court held that a prima facie case existed and accepted the State’s concern that release could lead to witness tampering and impede the trial.

Completion of the investigation and filing of the charge sheet did not, in the Court’s assessment, warrant bail in the circumstances.

It permitted the petitioners to file fresh bail applications before the trial court after the examination of the first informant and the eyewitnesses to the incident.

Any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.