The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of direct participation and presence during the commission of the alleged offense in the decision to grant bail.

JUDGMENT

B.A.Patil, J. - This petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused No.16 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to release him on bail in Crime No.54/2020 of Subramanyapura Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 120B, 109, 201, 304, 302, 35 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 25(1B)(B) and 27 of the Arms Act, (pending on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru).

2. I have heard the learned counsel Sri.Harish Prabhu S. for the petitioner-accused virtually and the learned High Court Government Pleader Sri.Mahesh Shetty for the respondent-State.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, there was ill-will between deceased Mukund and accused No.1 Rajat since two years for silly reason. They attempted 3-4 times to finish off the deceased. All the accused persons conspired and called the deceased near the tank and assaulted with deadly weapons and thereby committed the murder. On the basis of the complaint a case has been registered.

4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.16 that petitioners-accused Nos.14, 17 and 18 have approached this Court. Under similar facts and circumstances they have been enlarged on bail. On the ground of parity, the petitioner-accused No.16 is also entitled to be released on bail. No serious overt acts have been alleged as against the petitioner-accused No.16. The only allegation which has been made is that they have hatched a plan and intimated through mobile phone and accordingly the other accused persons have committed the murder. It is his further submission that there are no allegations of participation and presence of the petitioneraccused during commission of the alleged offence. He is ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to offer the sureties. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner-accused on bail.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that when the petitioner-accused was in jail, hatched a plan and intimated the accused persons by conspiring with accused Nos.1 to 13 to done away with the life of the deceased. If the petitioner-accused is ordered to be released on bail, he may again indulge in similar type of criminal activities. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.

7. On perusal of the case of the prosecution the only allegations revealed as against the petitioner-accused No.16 is that he along with other accused persons conspired and sent a message through mobile phone and it is accused Nos.1 to 13, they have done away with the life of the deceased. The petitioner-accused was not present at the place on the date of the alleged incident and he has not participated in the said crime. Whether he has sent a message and inspired the other accused persons to commit the offence, is a matter which has to be considered and appreciated during the course of trial. In that light, if by imposing some stringent conditions, if the petitioneraccused is ordered to be released on bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice.

8. In that light, this petition is allowed. The petitioner-accused No.16 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.54/2020 of Subramanyapura Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 120B, 109, 201, 304, 302, 35 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 25(1B)(B) and 27 of the Arms Act pending on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, subject to the following conditions:

i) Petitioner-accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

ii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.

iii) He shall not leave the juris