Repeated Bail Rejections and Advanced Trial Stage Preclude Regular Bail in Homicidal Conspiracy Case

The applicant, Suresh Kumar, sought regular bail for the fifth time regarding his incarceration since May 13, 2024, in connection with Crime No. 220/2024

The prosecution alleges that the applicant, along with co-accused persons, conspired to murder the deceased, Uttam Janghel, to fraudulently claim insurance money

The deceased was allegedly strangled in a forest and his body was subsequently crushed with a Scorpio vehicle to simulate a road accident

The first four bail applications were dismissed either as withdrawn or on merits

The applicant contended that key witnesses (PW-2 and PW-4) had turned hostile and that 18 out of 31 witnesses had already been examined

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the CrPC/Section 483 of the BNSS considering the alleged hostility of material witnesses and the duration of his pretrial detention.

2. Whether the successive nature of the bail application (5th application) is maintainable in the absence of a substantial change in circumstances.

The Court primarily considered Sections 302 (Murder), 120-B (Criminal Conspiracy), and 34 (Common Intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

It applied the principle that conspiracy is inherently hatched in secrecy and must be inferred from the conduct of the accused and surrounding circumstances

Furthermore, the Court adhered to the judicial discipline regarding successive bail applications, emphasizing that the gravity of the offence and the stage of the trial are pivotal factors in determining the necessity of continued detention

The Court rejected the applicant’s argument that the hostility of certain witnesses (PW-2 and PW-4) necessitated bail, noting that the trial was already at an advanced stage with 18 out of 31 witnesses examined

It reasoned that the "manner in which the alleged offence was committed"—involving strangulation and the brutal crushing of the body to stage an accident for insurance fraud—reflected a high degree of gravity

The Court observed that earlier rejections on merits remained valid as there were no significant changes in the circumstances

It emphasized that the conduct of the accused and the secrecy of the conspiracy are matters for final adjudication after the conclusion of the trial, and given the nature of the evidence in the charge sheet and the postmortem report, the applicant did not warrant release

It held that the gravity of the offence, the alleged conspiracy for insurance fraud, the brutal nature of the murder, and the fact that the trial is at an advanced stage outweigh the grounds for bail