The main legal point established is that in deciding bail applications for non-bailable offences, the court must consider the prima facie case, the seriousness of the offence, and the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice or tampering with witnesses.

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.5 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in Crime No.123/2016 of Gandhi Gunj Police Station, Bidar, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 364, 109, 302 r/w 149 of IPC.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of the complaint are that, on 30.08.2016 at about 11:30 a.m. when the complainant was in his shop, he received a phone call from Sharanu stating that near the main gate of Gumpa Gangadhar Hosalli, Mahesh Pasarge, Nagesh Sindhol, Vishwanath Hosalli, Vinodha Pasarge and some others by constituting unlawful assembly because of previous enmity between them assaulting to Narasimhareddy. Immediately he went to the said place and there he saw that the said persons were assaulting the said Narasimhareddy. Immediately himself along with Sharanu and Shivashankar intervened and tried to pacify the quarrel, the accused persons also assaulted the complainant and Shivashankar. It is further contended that accused persons took the said injured Narasimhareddy in a Honda Verna Car towards the house of Gangadhar Hosalli. It is further contended that complainant also chased to the said Car on a motorcycle and there he saw Gangadhar and other persons by stopping the Car near the gate, dragged the injured form the car and assaulted with knife on the head, neck, stomach, eyebrow and other persons have assaulted with stick. It is further contended that at that time Sharanu, Shivashankar, Balareddy came there and by seeing the revolver in the hand of Gangadhar, they stopped there only. It is further alleged that the said act was done at the instigation and abatement of Shashidhar. Then injured become unconscious, they took him to hospital in an ambulance, subsequently he succumbed to the injuries and a case has been registered against accused persons.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State.

4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the accused-petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged against him. He was not present at the place of incident as he was a witness in S.C.No.48/2014 and he was present in the Prl. Sessions Judge, Bidar and his statement has been recorded by the Court as PW.34 on the same day. He has further contended that by producing the deposition that there is no chance of accused No.5 being present at the place of incident. He has further contended that only with a previous enmity the accused-petitioner has been inculcated in the case. He has further contended that only allegation made against accused-petitioner is that he only instigated the other accused persons to commit the alleged crime. He has further contended that the dying declaration said to have been that of the deceased, is not containing the certificate of the doctor, what was the mental status of the deceased at the time of recording the said statement and said statement has not been recorded by the Officer of the rank of CPI and above. He has further contended that complaint or dying declaration which is said to have been recorded by the A.S.I. indicates that, the same has been concocted by taking the signature of the deceased on a blank paper. He has further contended that the accused – petitioner is a respectable member in the society and he is working as councilor in City Municipality, Bidar there is no chance of he being absconding and tampering with the prosecution evidence. He has further contended that he is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and he is ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition.

5. On the contrary, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State vehemently contended that accused-petitioner was present at the time of alleged incident as per dying declaration of the deceased himself. He has further contended that the alleged incident has taken at