Whether the offence constitutes murder or culpable homicide remains a matter for trial; bail granted.

The deceased’s daughter initially complained that her mother had pushed the deceased during a scuffle, causing him to fall and sustain a head injury.

The deceased later died, reportedly due to cardiac failure.

In a further statement, the daughter alleged that the petitioner, her husband, had assaulted the deceased with a stick.

The police registered the case and, after completing the investigation, filed a charge sheet for an offence under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

1. Whether the petitioner should be enlarged on regular bail while facing trial for an offence under Section 103(1) of the BNS

2. Whether the alleged conduct and the medical evidence raise an issue as to whether the offence falls under Section 103(1) of the BNS or amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, to be determined at trial

The Court considered the petitioner’s application for regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, which provides the basis for the High Court’s consideration of bail.

The alleged offence was registered under Section 103(1) of the BNS.

The Court identified the classification of the alleged offence—murder under Section 103(1) or culpable homicide not amounting to murder—as a matter for trial.

No precedents or further legal tests were cited in the order.

The Court noted that the complainant initially accused her mother, but later made a further statement alleging that the petitioner had assaulted the deceased with a stick.

It also considered that the post-mortem report attributed death to cardiac failure resulting from coronary artery disease.

In light of that medical evidence and the circumstances, the Court held that whether the alleged offence attracted Section 103(1) of the BNS or amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder should be decided at trial.

Having regard to the case circumstances, it found the petitioner entitled to bail, subject to conditions.

Conditions included not threatening or tampering with prosecution witnesses, cooperating with the investigation, not involving himself in similar offences, and marking attendance before the police once every fortnight for six months or until the final report, whichever occurred earlier.

The prosecution may seek cancellation of bail for breach of the conditions.