No Apprehension Of The Petitioner Intimidating/Influencing The Remaining Witnesses: Punjab And Haryana HC In Circumstantial Evidence Murder Case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted bail to a petitioner involved in a murder case under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul noting, "No apprehension of the petitioner intimidating/influencing the remaining witnesses," in her judgment.

The petitioner had been accused under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 302 for murder. The charges were based primarily on circumstantial evidence and a controversial confessional statement which the petitioner’s counsel argued was inadmissible.

Initially, the petitioner was not named in the FIR concerning the murder. His implication came later through an alleged confession obtained during police custody. This case highlighted issues around the admissibility of evidence and the reliance on witness testimonies that later became hostile.

Circumstantial Evidence: The judge pointed out that the allegations against the petitioner rested on weak circumstantial evidence without direct involvement.

Witness Hostility: Key prosecution witnesses, including the deceased’s brother and son, did not corroborate the story presented by the police, significantly weakening the case against the petitioner.

Validity of Confession: The defense successfully argued against the validity of the confessional statement, emphasizing its inadmissibility as evidence.

Absence of Motive: No clear motive was presented against the petitioner, further diminishing the strength of the prosecution’s case.

Justice Kaul granted the petitioner bail, considering his lack of criminal history and the weak case presented against him. The court emphasized that his continued imprisonment would be unjust, noting that the judgment should not influence the ongoing merits of the case.

Date of Decision: April 25, 2024

MANISH v. STATE OF HARYANA