Bail Denied in Murder Case Citing Strong Circumstantial Evidence.
09 April 2025
Bail and Antcipatory Bail >> Criminal Law | Murder Homicide >> Criminal Law
The prosecution's case hinges on two key pieces of circumstantial evidence: last seen testimony and the recovery of the weapon of offense. According to the FIR, police were alerted to a dead body found in the area. Investigations led to witnesses Vicky and Varun, who stated that on December 31, 2021, they, along with the deceased Chandan, were working together. Later that night, they all went to a jhuggi near Surya Grand Hotel where the accused Santosh and Vinod (the applicant) were present. An argument ensued between Chandan and Santosh over a "beedi," prompting Vicky and Varun to leave the scene. Shortly after, at 3:42 AM, the police received information about the dead body.
Further investigation led to the recovery of the murder weapon—a knife—from the dickey of the applicant's father's scooter at the instance of the accused. DNA profiling confirmed that the knife was smeared with the deceased Chandan's blood.
The defense counsel argued that the entire prosecution case was false, claiming the applicant was not present at the scene and the knife was planted. However, when directly asked, the defense could not provide a reason for the alleged false implication of the applicant. The prosecution also informed the court that while one of the last seen witnesses, Vicky, had testified, the other witness, Varun, had since passed away.
Section 302., Indian Penal Code - 1860
Section 304., Indian Penal Code - 1860