HC Expounds: ‘An Accused Cannot Be Denied Bail When Witnesses Spelling Out Motive Have Been Declared Hostile’

Chandigarh, India — The High Court of Punjab & Haryana has elucidated that an accused cannot be denied bail if the witnesses who provided the motive for the crime have been declared hostile. This decision came while allowing a bail petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in a case involving serious charges including murder.

Case Background:

The case in question is related to the fatal assault on a deceased individual by the accused, including the petitioner, who faced charges under Sections 302 (murder), 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 149 (unlawful assembly), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The motive alleged was the apprehension that the deceased would transfer his property to his brother and nephews.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The petitioner’s counsel argued for bail, pointing out the false implication of the petitioner. It was highlighted that during the trial, none of the material witnesses, including the complainant, supported the prosecution’s case and were declared hostile. The defense stressed that the case relies on circumstantial evidence and no clear motive was established against the petitioner. Furthermore, the counsel noted that the petitioner’s continued incarceration served no purpose given the improbability of an early trial conclusion.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The respondent’s counsel opposed the bail request but conceded that the material witnesses had turned hostile during the trial.

Court’s Observations:

Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul observed that the petitioner had been in custody since March 4, 2023, in a case that rested on circumstantial evidence. The alleged motive for the crime — the apprehension regarding property transfer — was weak, especially since all witnesses, including those who provided the motive, had turned hostile. With 34 prosecution witnesses yet to be examined, the court recognized the unlikelihood of the trial concluding soon.

Court’s Decision:

The Punjab & Haryana High Court, considering the circumstances, granted the petitioner bail, noting that further detention would serve no purpose. The petitioner is to be admitted to bail to the satisfaction of the trial court or duty magistrate concerned.

Case Details:

• Case Title: Rinku v. State of Haryana
• Coram: Hon’ble Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul
• Case No.: CRM-M-23900-2024
• Advocates for Petitioner: Mr. Jai Singh Yadav, Mr. Rishab Bhandari, Mr. Sahil Raria, Mr. Pradeep Yadav, and Ms. Alpana Yadav
• Advocate for Respondent: Ms. Deepshikha Chauhan

This ruling underscores the importance of credible witness testimony in bail considerations and highlights judicial caution against prolonged detention based on uncorroborated motives.

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!