Court’s Decision
The Karnataka High Court allowed the criminal petition seeking regular bail filed by an accused charged under Sections 302, 120B, 109, 114, 201, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code in a case involving the alleged murder of a prominent social activist. The Court held that the material on record, particularly the delay and inconsistency in the statements of eyewitnesses recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, raised serious doubts about the reliability of the prosecution’s case at the stage of considering bail. The Court further held that the custodial interrogation of the accused was no longer necessary as the charge sheet had been filed and recovery completed.
Facts
The accused was arrested in connection with the murder of a well-known social activist, which allegedly took place as part of a broader criminal conspiracy involving several individuals and organizations. The prosecution’s case was that the activist was targeted for her outspoken views, and the petitioner played a crucial role in the conspiracy leading to the murder. The petitioner had been in custody since 2018. The key witnesses whose statements were recorded under Sections 161 and later 164 CrPC had initially not mentioned the accused’s name, but added significant allegations in their 164 statements after a long delay.
Issues
- Whether the delay in recording statements under Section 164 CrPC created a justifiable ground for granting bail.
- Whether inconsistencies in the statements of the key witnesses affect the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
- Whether the custody of the petitioner was still necessary when the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that there was no direct involvement in the offence and that he had been falsely implicated. It was argued that the statements of witnesses under Section 161 CrPC did not name the petitioner and only under Section 164 CrPC—recorded after a long delay—did the name appear with specific allegations. This, according to the defence, raised serious doubts as to the genuineness and spontaneity of the statements. It was submitted that the petitioner had been in custody for a significant period and the investigation had been completed. Further, no recovery or custodial interrogation remained pending. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to bail.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed the bail application, stating that the petitioner was part of a conspiracy to eliminate the activist and played a key role in aiding the execution of the crime. The State relied on the statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC to argue that the petitioner was named by eyewitnesses as being present during crucial planning meetings and logistics. The seriousness of the offence, the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and the wider ramifications of the conspiracy were cited as reasons to oppose bail. The prosecution also contended that Section 164 CrPC statements recorded before a Magistrate carry higher evidentiary weight and thus substantiate the allegations.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analysed the evidentiary value of Section 161 and 164 CrPC statements. It acknowledged that while Section 164 statements are recorded before a Magistrate and may carry greater reliability, the delay in recording such statements can affect their credibility if not properly explained. The Court emphasised that the purpose of bail is not to determine guilt but to ensure that the accused is available for trial and that investigation or trial is not hindered. The Court also noted that the material inconsistencies and delay in crucial witness testimonies cast a serious shadow over the prosecution’s version of events.
Precedent Analysis
- Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694 – Emphasised the right to liberty and the requirement of compelling circumstances to deny bail.
- State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (1977) 4 SCC 308 – Reiterated the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception”.
- Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Laid down the test of reasonable doubt in criminal jurisprudence, relevant in assessing reliability of inconsistent evidence.
- Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) 3 SCC 22 – Highlighted that personal liberty is a fundamental right and cannot be curtailed without compelling justification.
The Court applied these principles to reinforce that procedural irregularities and weak witness statements at this stage tilt the balance in favour of liberty.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the long delay in recording the Section 164 CrPC statements of the eyewitnesses, and the omission of the petitioner’s name in earlier Section 161 statements, weakened the prosecution case. It further observed that the petitioner had been in custody for several years, the charge sheet had been filed, and there was no recovery or pending investigation warranting continued detention. Given the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and considering the balance between liberty and justice, the Court held that the petitioner had made out a case for grant of bail.
Conclusion
The Karnataka High Court granted bail to the petitioner with stringent conditions, noting that the material on record was insufficient to justify prolonged incarceration at the pre-trial stage. The Court made it clear that the grant of bail was not an expression on the merits of the case and directed that the petitioner should not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.
Implications
This judgment underscores that in cases involving serious offences like murder, bail may still be granted if procedural inconsistencies or evidentiary infirmities cast serious doubts on the prosecution case. It reiterates that liberty is a fundamental right and prolonged pre-trial detention without compelling justification offends Article 21 of the Constitution. The ruling sends a message to investigators to ensure timely and consistent recording of witness statements in high-profile cases.
Referred Judgments and Their Relevance
- Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra – Reaffirmed liberty as the rule and custodial detention as an exception.
- State of Rajasthan v. Balchand – Set the general principle that bail should be preferred over jail.
- Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra – Laid the foundation for evaluating evidence based on reasonable doubt.
- Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh – Upheld the importance of personal liberty and criticised unnecessary detention without trial.
FAQs
1. Can an accused be granted bail in a murder case involving conspiracy if witness statements are inconsistent?
Yes. If the statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC are inconsistent and delayed without justification, courts may grant bail despite the seriousness of the offence.
2. What is the evidentiary value of Section 164 CrPC statements?
Statements under Section 164 CrPC, recorded before a Magistrate, carry greater evidentiary value, but their reliability depends on the timing, consistency, and corroboration with other evidence.
3. Does long custody without trial justify bail in serious offences?
Yes. As per constitutional principles and precedents, prolonged incarceration without trial may justify bail even in serious offences, provided it does not hamper investigation or trial.
